NPM: Detroit

Despite a short stint up in the Wolverine backwoods, I've spent over 75% of my life living one block from the city of Detroit. I grew up in a house across the street from my grandparents and I now live in my grandparents old home. Funny how life can work out sometimes.

Anyone paying attention to the News is well aware of the problems with Detroit. I love the city. I love how dirty, grimey, and unpolished it appears to outsiders. I love the view you get driving north on I-75 coming over the Rouge River Bridge and the city skyline appears with the RenCen glistening and the Ambassador bridge in the foreground and the smoke and haze of manufacturing surrounding the beauty. I'm pretty unapologetic of my love for all things Detroit (even Kid Rock and Eminem, but not so much Lions and City Council)

They say New York is the city that never sleeps, well Detroit is the city that never stops working.

That was until they starting bailing out Wall St.

I won't aplogize for this video, and it's as in your face as it needs to be.

“Pardon me if I don’t shed a tear...‘Cause they’re selling make-believe and we don’t buy that here.” - John Rich

Unfortunately, no one's listening.

I'm on Board

Unless we are anywhere near Somalia or Rush shows up.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING!!!

This "Presidential Debate" is absolutely brutal.

Neither one of them are answering any of the damn questions.

Lehere specifically asked each candidate what are they going to cut out of thier budgets and programs to help accomodate that probable, supposed $700 billion buy-out, and they spent (no pun intended) more time talking about what they want to do. Be a leader!!! Be a Maverick!!! Bring change!!! SOMEONE...ANYONE

AND THEN LEHER HIT THEM ON IT!!!!

"Neither one of you have said what you would do to make up for this buyout"

"One of you will come into office in January and be staring down one of the biggest and toughest times our country as ever faced."

AND THE BOTH GO BACK TO PARTISAN POLITICS.

"We have to do this..." "I want to do this..." healthcare, education, defense, blah, blah, blah...

And then Lehere says let me ask you the same question a different way to try and get an answer...

The poor guy can't get a straight answer from either one of these chumps, and one of them will be President.....

*sigh*

Hey, did you know that McCain is a Maverick?

Did you know that McCain agreed with Bush 90% of the time?

Did you know that Barack Obama is the most far left voting Senator?

Did you know that John McCain was a war hero?

Did you know McCain was for the war?

Did you know that Barack opposed the war from the beginning?



Do you know what John or Barack are going to do to solve the current crisis?

What are they going to do to maybe balance the budget?

Do we know what actual leadership qualities either of these guys bring to the table?

Extermination and War

Chilling piece from Joe Carter in Culture11 about how China and India, among other countries, are exterminating shocking numbers of baby girls in the womb. Hey, if abortion is legal and accepted, what right do any of us have to tell Indian and Chinese mothers they may not kill their baby daughters -- sorry, female fetuses -- because they'd prefer to have boys? Right, feminists?

Beyond the confluence of feticide and sexism, Carter foresees violence in the womb leading to violence elsewhere:

Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. For instance, the Chinese government says that by the year 2020 the men in that country will outnumber women by 300 million--roughly the entire population of the United States.

Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration that will be generated. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million.

Pious Hand Wringing

Further proof that the Catholics are getting it more right all the time and why the Evangelicals flounder and spin their wheels under the banner of "conversation."

Truth hurts, truth divides, and truth is love. Truth is not judging. Truth is compassion and not tolerance. Hurt and divide are the ugly results of truth, the difference is that the glory in truth is to far outshine the ugly. Too many times, we focus on the ugly and not the glory.

The Roman Catholic arhcbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, is someone I'd be a dummy for when it comes to the issue he writes about in this magnificent teaching document. He sets the Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi, a self-described "ardent practicing Catholic" straight about what her Church actually teaches and expects its communicants to believe on abortion. Rarely do religious leaders of any church speak so clearly and forcefully about faith and morality in public life. Here's a characteristic passage:

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

Magnificent. Of course many Catholic Democrats and Christian Democrats will continue to vote and serve the Democratic Party. Earlier he wrote:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life--which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

And further

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be "personally opposed" to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse--exactly as it is today. In fact, I can't name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life--not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there's very little action.

"Pious hand-wringing." Exactly so.

Where's the humanity in a "Pro-Choice" stance?

Hillary Widmore

This is for all you "Losties" out there......


Hillary Widmore!!!!

Bureaucracy vs. Humanity

In Poland, traditional farmers are being driven out of business because of European Union regulations favoring factory farming. The ironic thing about it is that cultural and culinary trends are shifting in the direction of precisely the kind of traditional farming that they do. But they are going to be wiped out by Brussels' cookie-cutter regulations.

Kirk said that true conservatives have an "affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." Conservatives ought to be on the side of the Polish farmers. I've no doubt that many who call themselves conservative will sneer at this thought, and say that the Poles should give way to market efficiency. Well: the price of something doesn't always reflect its full cost.

Politics and Culture

"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Culture and politics are intimately related. And the current economic crash we appear to be on is proof of this. The financial recklessness that engulfed Wall Street and Main Street both didn't come from nowhere, and it wasn't imposed on us from on high. No, the politicians that allowed this to happen came out of a culture that enabled it. Politicians aren't created in some lab or basement or factory and come out minted 100% whole; they are human beings who are produced by the culture they serve, and as such reflect the strengths and weaknesses of that culture.

How many politicians of either party could have hoped to have been elected to national office over the past quarter century by preaching thrift, self-discipline and self-sacrifice?

Already we can see our tendency is to blame other people for this confrontation with limits. It's the Chinese and Indians. It's the oil companies. It's Bush/Cheney. It's the Islamofascists. It’s like heavy traffic. Heavy traffic is always other people. When you say 'traffic was terrible' you’re never talking about yourself. Well, folks, the traffic is terrible. But the last thing we should be doing is building more roads.

Here's what I don't get about conservatives (i.e. me). We are able to recognize the danger in Big Government; our understanding of the fallenness of human nature makes us rightly suspicious of the concentration of power in the hands of the state. But what makes us so willing to disbelieve that concentrating so much unchecked power in the hands of financiers will lead us to paradise? Is the financier any less human and more angelic than the government bureaucrat? Is he less susceptible to greed, to envy, and to all the ordinary vices that deform human character and cause us to behave in foolish and reckless ways? Law and culture are two gifts of civilization to help us order our liberty, and put constraints on individual action. Too much constraint, and you stifle life, growth and creativity; too little, and you have shipwreck.

God's Judgement on the Nation cont....

Wouldn't you know it........

Following a reference from one of my buddies in response to reading "God's Judgement on the Nation" he lead me to a couple resources he knew of that would perhaps answer some of the questions I proposed in that post.

The issue came up not long ago in an Mars Hill Audio Journal interview with Prof. Steven Keillor, author of a book called "God's Judgment." Unfortunately, if you click on the link you have to pay for the podcast or other form of media you'd like to use to hear it. I didn't get to hear the podcast but was given the highlights and the following link with an excerpt from a critical but largely favorable review of the Keillor book, which appeared in Books & Culture and was written by Prof. Brad Gregory of Notre Dame:

Those of us skeptical of Keillor's aim [to show that it's possible to argue seriously that God intervenes in history -- my note.] need not accept his premises in order to see the force of his arguments. His claim that the Bible offers a divinely revealed understanding of history can be tested (albeit never proved) by its analytical power in interpreting major historical events. Keillor seeks "to correlate known causes of the event with known categories of divine holiness and judgment" as disclosed in Scripture, well aware that such interpretations can be perilous and are often abused:

We must beware of presumption in claiming to know the mind of God. But the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, where the inability to know for sure morphs into a refusal to ask questions that cannot be known with certainty and then into a dismissal of the category of divine judgment.

In short: if God's purposes are such and such, then certain events are plausibly understood as his judgments in the flow of human history.

I won't get into the details of Keillor's theory of how we can discern God's purposes in historical events -- the B&C review does this nicely. Bible Girl's column, though, was a good reminder as to how rarely many of us serious Christians ever think about God's judgment with regard to national events -- and how unbiblical that is. In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor explicitly discusses the temptation to read divine purposes into the events after the fact, or perhaps to justify wars and other events. But just because it's common for people to do such a thing doesn't mean that we should dismiss entirely the idea that God uses dramatic events to chastise nations and to teach them something about their behavior.

We all remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's pronouncement right after the 9/11 attacks that the event was God's judgment on America brought about because of the actions of the abortionists and gays. When I heard that, I was enraged and furious. Some time later, though, I had to confront the possibility that they were right, that the events of that day were, in some sense, permitted by God as a judgment upon America. I think that given the symbolic power of the attacks, a far stronger case can be made that if -- if -- the God of the Bible intended those attacks as a judgment, the symbolic meaning of the targets would lead us to conclude that He was trying to teach us a lesson about the corrupting power of wealth and materialism (the Twin Towers), and about American militarism (the Pentagon). That interpretation wouldn't suit the political purposes of the Revs. Falwell and Robertson, but it makes a lot more sense to me. See the difference?

It seems to me no bad thing for American Christians to think more rigorously about how our nation measures up to the Biblical standard, and how God might be speaking to us collectively through historical events to call us back to obedience and fidelity. We so often assume that our national aspirations and intentions are consonant with the Almighty's, and that's a profoundly hubristic assumption. So many US Christians support the idea that spreading liberal democracy is a fulfillment of the Great Commission, a sort of divine "mission civilisatrice " for the world, that we don't even stop to consider how God might see what we do. Even the Chosen People fell away from the divine will, and suffered for it. Why shouldn't we?

In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor said that one reason we modern Americans are uncomfortable thinking about interpreting history in this way is that we are opposed to the idea of collective guilt. We judge individuals, not groups, in our legal system. We expect God's judgment to conform to that model. But insofar as the Bible is a reliable testimony of God's literal historical dealings with humanity, we are imposing our own model on Him, and it's baseless. He does judge nations. Neither the United States nor righteous Americans are immune.

So: laugh at Bible Girl if you want to, but whether or not you agree with her conclusion, she's standing on firm Biblical ground in asking the right questions.

God's Judgement on the Nation

This is some interesting stuff I came across and has me really thinking just what it is I believe.

Bible Girl, aka Julie Lyons, is a white Pentecostal who keeps a blog at the Dallas Observer (Dallas' weekly Alt-mag). From what I can gather she worshipes at a black church. And as you will see, she apparently has a history of being fearlessly honest in her writing.

She's got a column about why, even though she remembers a Nigerian pastor prophesying in 2001 that after the Bush years, God would give America a black president, and even though she's a pro-life D will not consider voting Republican until the GOP gets serious about what she regards as racial justice, she will not vote for Barack Obama. The reason? Abortion. Excerpt:

It is interesting how Scripture virtually ignores a king’s political or military accomplishments. Jeroboam II, for example, presided over a time of great prosperity and influence for Israel. Yet the Bible dismisses these things in a few brusque sentences. Jeroboam II ultimately failed in keeping God’s commands, and he was judged to be evil. Because he called evil good, he caused the people to do evil as well. End of story; over and out.

Which brings me to abortion again. I’m one of those people who was never passionate about this issue until I had a child of my own -- kind of like the folks who don’t care about famine in faraway places until they see the pictures of starving children. God touched my conscience one day concerning abortion; today I passionately oppose it and call myself a pro-life Democrat.

I see it as an elemental thing: the value of life. You couldn’t identify an issue that cuts to the core more than that.

I won’t say I’m the deepest thinker on this subject. It’s just simple to me. I will put no other god before me, neither will I play God and make decisions reserved solely for him. Every time man has been given the power to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die, hideous things have resulted.

The Middle Passage. The Holocaust. The Nazis’ extermination of the mentally retarded and gypsies. Genocide in Armenia, Rwanda, Darfur. The executions of innocents in Texas and other states. Abortion.

More

Yet I can’t escape the words of Kings. God will judge a leader by one thing: his faithfulness to God’s Word on matters for which the Christian position is clear.
No, that’s not a fashionable concept these days. It won’t win me many friends in the circles I travel. I do understand that we don’t live in a theocracy; our nation is governed by a constitution. As voters, we deal in a continuum of hope and reality. We don’t get everything we want.

Well, whoever said the world would understand or approve of followers of Jesus Christ?

I believe that Barack Obama will be our next president; the hand of God is upon him. If you read Kings, though, that can cut many ways.

But I will not give him my vote.

So, does God still judge nations?

I mean her explanation is unusual. She based her conclusion in large part on her reading of the Bible, and its clear testimony that God intervenes in history to judge nations that fall away from His will. She is withholding her vote from Obama because of her very real conviction that God's judgment will fall on this nation if it fully embraces the legalized extermination of unborn lives (nearly 50 million of whom have died at the hands of abortionists since Roe v. Wade was legalized in 1973).

For non-believers, it is obviously foolishness to make a political decision based on fear of God's judgment. But do believers really have the option not to consider it? Abraham Lincoln didn't think so. His Second Inaugural Address framed the Civil War as God's judgment on America for the sin of slavery. Excerpt (again):

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

I don't think Lincoln was speaking figuratively. He really believed the Civil War was an act of divine judgment. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously as a record of God's dealing with His people in history cannot escape the testimony in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) of God withdrawing his protection from Israel in response to its stiff-necked behavior. God sent the Prophets to call Israel back to holiness. And when that didn't work, He allowed chastisement to humble his Chosen Nation.

If we believe that God dealt with Israel that way, why wouldn't he deal with us, and with any other nation, that way?

Bummer

Unfortunately the HTML banner tag has got to come down.....

Mike Huckabee formally withdrew from the Republican race and endorsed John McCain. Good for him. He got blown out in Texas last night -- exit polling showed that more Texas Evangelicals voted for McCain than for Huck. I didn't want it to end this way, of course, but it has, and Huckabee's withdrawal was graceful and honorable. "I'd rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place," he said. I loved his paying tribute to the little men and women who sacrificed for his campaign, "a voice for the hard-working people who lift heavy things every day." It was heartfelt, and his marvelous exit speech reminded me why I fell for Huck in the first place -- and why I hope this isn't the last we see of him.

By any measure, Huckabee accomplished so very, very much, and on little more than his ability to give a great speech, and to convince people of his authenticity. He outlasted the mighty, multimillion-dollar Mitt Romney campaign, and in fact was critically important in derailing it. Had he remained after tonight, he would have come off as a crank and a dead-ender. By going out on a high note, and pledging to do everything he can for the GOP this fall, he's done a lot to ensure his continuing influence in the party.

I'd like to ask Huck backers (and anyone really) what should our man do now? He'll be a formidable campaigner for the GOP this fall, that's for sure. But assuming he doesn't get the vice presidential nomination, what about after the election?

Rumor has it he may try and run in the Senate race in Arkansas (deadline to file is Monday). Some have suggested he could succeed James Dobson as the voice of Evangelicals. Maybe McCain picks him as a member of the Cabinet? Maybe he goes back to church, starts preaching again and we never hear from him again.

An Inconvenient Conference

This weekend, my family and I (or should I just say my family?) travelled to Cedar Springs (15 miles or so North of Grand Rapids) to visit some college friends and to partake in the festivities of a first birthday party for their son Ethan. Good times for sure.

But during the festivities, I believe it was channel 8 news ended up on the TV and the weatherman proceeded to tell the viewing public that February 2008 was going to go down as the snowiest ever for Grand Rapids and only had 16% sunshine the whole month.

What a truly incovenient month it has been for Grand Rapids and really the whole left coast of Michigan. And I can tell you that Metro Detroit has not been much better at all. Probably right on the same track. And again today, 3-6 inches of snow.

It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.

But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."

They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.

Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?

A new and very different conference on global warming was and is currently being held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.

It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.

They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.

There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.

The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."

Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.

These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.

This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.

The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.

Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.

There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.

The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.

So why has no one heard about this conference? Why no news or reporting or a daily update from cable news networks? Why no "panel of experts"?

Because, it's a true inconvenience for those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.

Gimme some of that New-Old Time Religion

[UPDATE] - I couldn't help it, while looking out my window at the blustery winter Sunday afternoon of single digit temps and below zero wind chills. Watching garbage blow away down the street, tree limbs bend oh so close to breaking and thankful for the ability to burn fossil fuels to stay warm.



Modern man has shucked off most of the restraints of traditional religion. While a majority of people still say they believe in God, or at least in some form of higher being, they have rationalized their belief system so as to owe no real tribute to their ill-defined deity.

No longer are they bound by the sanctions and rules dictated by the old-time religions.

But instead of enjoying their “liberation”, their “freedom” from the inconvenient "thou shalt nots," they're embracing a different sort of puritanism and welcoming equally suffocating restrictions in regard to the new gods of health and the environment.

These new faiths, in practice, are amazingly similar to the old.

They have their own schedule of sins and vices and are just as intolerant and judgmental of those who stray from the path of righteousness. They also will go to extremes to impose their doctrines -- witness New York City's recently-passed law forbidding city hospitals from sending new mothers home with baby formula, to push breast-feeding (it's amazing what news stories catch your fancy when a child is introduced into your life).

Skeptics are demonized as heretics. To question the causes and impact of global warming, for example, is blasphemous, and many in the scientific community are finding the price for expressing doubt is banishment.

The new religions are no more tolerant of non-conformity -- smokers are shunned the way libertines once were. And they are equally instilled with an evangelical zeal to spread the faith. "Fan the flame!!" (or should we say "put out the flame" or........)

Like their predecessors, the obsession of the new religions is controlling the behavior of the flock. The real agenda of the campaign against global warming is to achieve the longstanding goals of environmentalists to force people onto mass-transit, draw them back from far-flung suburbs and minimize their ability to profit from the earth.

The new religions give new interpretations to several of Catholicism's seven deadly sins, including:

• Pride . The vanity of individualism is discouraged as a threat to the collective good. Lifestyle choices must conform to the standards of propriety set by all-knowing spiritual leaders (think Al Gore).
• Gluttony . Consumerism and overconsumption are the great evils. Frugality is a virtue, and piety is attained by the Carteresque measure of living a smaller life, accepting less. Traditional religions reward sacrifice and self-denial with immortality (allbeit heretical in it’s own rite); it's not yet clear how the new faiths will incentivize deprivation.
• Greed. The notion that American ingenuity and productivity entitle this country to a bigger piece of the pie is unholy. We're expected to feel guilty about our prosperity, pressured to give away our wealth.
• Lust. While these new faiths don't meddle so much in your sex life -- nearly any sexual practice is OK, as long as it's "safe" and consensual -- if you hunger for big trucks, big houses, big cigars -- your wages are damnation.

Unfortunately, there is no rabid oppession and acceptance of a separation of church and state to protect non-believers from being pressed into observance as their is with the "Old-Time Religions". Canonical law is written by secular legislatures and enforced by public agents.

An agnostic -- or Mother Earth forbid, an atheist -- living in this new religious environment may find life as uncomfortable as did the “witches” of Salem.

This sounds familiar...

Not sure if you'll ever hear me quote Rush Limbaugh ever again in my life but I read this in a news article and it sounded oddly familiar.

If the Republican Party expands because we have a candidate who's going out trying to attract liberals by being like them, then the party's going to be around but you won't recognize it.

How does Limbuagh pontificating and fire breathing anti-McCain rhetoric sound familiar you ask?

Like this:

If the Church expands because we have Christians going out trying to
attract non-believers by being like them, then the Church's going to be around
but you won't recognize it.

Already pre-ordered it....

And here, if you do not have a PDF reader.

Spending Your Rebate

[UPDATE] - I posted the same thing over at the PoliForum, but some of you may not even check that site out....




Most of us are going to checks from the government to encourage us to spend money to keep the economy from going into recession:

Under the plan, as many as 117 million people would get rebate checks. Individual income tax filers would receive up to $600, working couples would get up to $1,200, and those with children would get an additional $300 per child.

How are you going to spend your rebate?

Stay away from whether you think this is the right move or not, it's happened and we are getting the checks, and while we are all people with very heavy convictions, I doubt any of us are going to throw the check away or not cash it if we disagree with this move.

Save it?

Spend it?

Pay off debt?

Buy a car?

Paint the house?

Use the money as a down payment on a house?

Buy a PS3?

Or maybe you will throw it away.......good for you, you're an idiot but good for you.

What Really Matters

Liberty is Brewing

Conservative Christian - A Prologue

UPDATE: This is a prologue to the series of posts I mentioned a couple weeks ago that I have been composing on Christianity and the Conservative movement. I have really been thinking about this whole "Conservative Christian" moniker people like to throw around. And the more I wrote this prologue and wrote the next 3 posts in the series, the more I am finding it harder and harder to see the connection. Why is the prologue and why do the next 3 posts seem so different? Maybe you the reader will see something, but as I wrote the prologue and the subsequent follow-ups, I took a turn somewhere. None the less, know that I am going to publish the whole series (on Mondays) just as I have written them.



There are many conservatives who would like to return to the era of frequent public executions, even hangings. In fact, conservatives are generally united in strong support for the death penalty, a fact the liberal media enjoys equating with the election of George W. Bush as President, since as Governor of Texas, Bush presided over record numbers of executions. It is anecdotally said that Bush faced opposition to the death penalty from his mother, wife and daughters, but never flinched, even in the case of Karla Faye Tucker, an obviously rehabilitated evangelical Christian.

I support the death penalty. People like Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh deserved nothing less. As a Christian, I believe it is taught in scripture and I have no doubt that Jesus would have supported it. If I served on a jury, I would express my support for the death penalty without embarrassment.

Having said all that, I am uneasy with the current conservative posture on the death penalty. Not with the position, but with the posture; with our approach to the application of the issue. But it isn’t just the death penalty, it’s a lot of things that our “posture” is a problem within the “Conservative Christian” movement. The death penalty premise is an easier subject to express posture versus position. I know we are talking about human life, but the death penalty isn’t a “sticky” subject. At least I think it isn’t in relative terms to Immigration, Iraq war, Abortion, Homosexual Rights, Healthcare, etc.

Let me be clear about one thing. I do not believe we should question the death penalty as a way of making conservatism or Christianity "kinder" or "compassionate." If someone thinks that conservatism is cruel, they don't understand liberalism, which is tyranny masquerading as compassion. The Biblical admonitions that support capital punishment are presented as a way of properly valuing and respecting the fact that human beings are made in the image of God. It's not presented as a way to torture the guilty, but to remind the rest of us that people aren't like anything else in creation. I don't expect liberals to appreciate that, since they reject the Judeo-Christian worldview and its emphasis on the sacredness of human life. Note how liberals can't see why we oppose abortion yet support capital punishment.

No, my reconsideration is based on two factors: my enthusiastic belief in limited government, and my commitment to the idea of genuine, objective truth. Sad to say, I believe conservative enthusiasm for particular issues is obscuring the importance of these two principles. And we must be a principled movement, or our positions mean nothing.

Let's start with my second objection (what I believe to be the lesser of my thought out arguments, meaning you’ll probably find a lot of holes in this point, oh well): the importance of genuine, objective truth. Conservatives may not entirely agree on the nature of truth or the means for discovering it, but generally, they have refused the postmodern spirit and insisted that judgments, policies and personal choices be evaluated on their coherence to an objective standard of truth. Whether Christians or not, conservatives have said "You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

What does this have to do with the death penalty? Plenty. In making a judgment about guilt and punishment, conservatives need to take into consideration all the truth in a given situation. Frankly, this seems to be quite the opposite of what many conservatives want to do. For example, the truth of mental status applies in the case of Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her kids. Yes, it did result in dueling expert psychologists explaining her mental state, but we aren't acting on principle if we ignore that aspect of the case, even with the clear outrage of the death of five children. We should say that no punishment is appropriate until we know if this mother was rational, insane or some mixture of the two.

Every couple weeks or months, the news magazines like 20/20 or the big news channels CNN and Fox News run a special report where a convicted murderer was released because DNA evidence proved they could not have committed the crimes for which they were convicted. Conservatives say little about this, and I'd go so far as to say I suspect some are not happy at the development. The fact is, this is the triumph of truth, and conservatives should rejoice. It is liberals and postmodernists who want us to believe that truth is political and imaginary, shaped only by the agenda of the powerful (government and religious entities). As conservatives, we believe truth is a force that brings down tyrants and rights wrongs. We don't believe it is a commodity to be ignored or manipulated.

As the debate continues, it seems there is a fear, not entirely irrational, that we should be swift and quick in the use of capital punishment to insure that the culture of excuses, with all its various prophets of irresponsibility, doesn't turn the entire justice system into the O.J. Simpson trial. I sympathize and largely support that notion, but we will not achieve that end by reducing the "truth factors" considered in a particular case. The Houston mom was eventually ruled to be insane by a reasonable definition, as such she must be dealt with differently than McVeigh, and conservatives should be quick to say it. We should strongly support the distinction between children and adults, and be against the kind of sentencing that sees them as the same, because it is the truth that they are not the same. We should welcome the evidence of science in any form that gets us closer to what really happened. Truth is always our friend and ally.

When we love the truth, we are all more free. And freedom is a core conservative principle. Quick justice and swift punishment are not the legacies of our system of government, but the legacies of lynchings and tyranny. Conservatives may not like judicial activism, the ACLU, the trial lawyers lobby and the like, but let's not forget that the truthful use of the justice system is a precious benefit of our continuing American revolution. On any given day, it may be the only protection any one of us has, and perhaps our only hope of publishing the truth.

So, we go to my other consideration (the one I hold to dearly and is the crux of a lot of my belief), the principle of limited government. And here, I am bitterly disappointed with many of my conservative counterparts. We will applaud the limitation of government on taxes and regulations. We applaud the limitation of government in taking over the private sector. We applaud the limitation of government in forcing the liberal agenda on our families. But can't we see that limited government is important when it comes to the issues of our agenda as well?

Conservatives are attempting to preserve the ideas of the American revolution, particularly the idea that unlimited central government inevitably leads to abuse. It’s actually something I was taught relentlessly while sitting under the tutelage of school administrators. Any study of history will quickly reveal that one of the primary abuses of government in history has been the application of capital punishment. Christian scripture clearly says that government has the power to bear the sword, but that same scripture shows the execution of Jesus by the state as an evil act. The founding fathers of this nation were good candidates for swift execution by the British government. All dictatorial empires have used capital punishment to eliminate opposition and intimidate the public. To listen to some conservatives talk, you'd think that captial punishment, like Christmas, can only do us good. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. All those burning Protestants were fried up.........legally.

When we allow the government to execute McVeigh, we should be reluctantly yielding such power. When we see the incarceration of thousands of Americans for crimes like personal drug use or tax evasion, we should be uneasy. It is quite possible that capital punishment is abused by state governments and it is quite appropriate that conservatives be the loudest voices urging caution in the use of the ultimate punishment. Not because it is wrong, but because government is sinful and awkward, usually acting in the interests of the powerful, and not to be trusted completely in any situation. Even when implementing our agenda.

As I see it, conservatives are somewhat seduced by their desire for justice and order. While these values are important, even crucial, they cannot be purchased at the price of making government more powerful. Freedom, not order, is our primary value. Justice must include the possibility that government can be unjust, and frequently finds ways to punish those who are innocent of anything other than deviation from the norm.

So I would prefer that our attitude towards capital punishment be seasoned with a bit less enthusiasm, since we are, after all, giving to government the right to kill us all for whatever reasons it deems acceptable. That makes patriots nervous. So where are the patriots?

I don't expect many conservatives to join me in these reconsiderations, but I think they are important. Conservatives are showing a dangerous tendency to be willing to give up their freedoms to purchase more order in society. If we are reduced to such a choice, all of us will have difficulty choosing, but consider one option. If we empower tyrants with more power and less truth, how will freedom loving people rise up to oppose such a government and restore true justice?

Next I tackle myself.

Two Words....

Chuck.

Norris.

Fearmongering!!

I'm Brian A. Maloney and I approve this message.

The earth is warming!

True – the earth is warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the twentieth century.

The earth is warming because of us!

Uhh…maybe

If our fossil-fuel burning is responsible for the warming, something doesn’t add up. Half of the global warming of the past century happened from 1900 to 1945. If man is responsible, why wasn’t there much more warming in the second half of the century? We burned much more fuel during that time. What about that? Huh? You don’t hear the environmental alarmists talking about it…

The planet is just in a gradual warming trend, coming out of what scientists call the “Little Ice Age,” which ended in the 1800s. Our climate has always undergone changes, and it’s presumptuous to think humans’ impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. A graph of temperatures over the last four thousand years shows today’s warming isn’t such a big deal. We, humans, really need to get over ourselves.

There will be storms, flooded coasts, and huge disruptions in climate!

Probably not

FEARMONGERING!!!

Schoolchildren are being taught and are scared that America is dying in a sea of pollution and cities will soon be under water.

The National Resources Defense Council has lawyers (surprise…an environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) running around warning that sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. On and on and on and on and on and on……

WOW! We’re screwed!!

You thought Y2K was bad….

Wait it wasn’t…..

Exactly.

The Association of American Geographers has reported that melting Arctic ice won’t raise sea levels any more than the melting ice in your drink makes your glass overflow. The Arctic ice cap is a floating chunk of….ice. It’s not a land mass adding to water.

What about the melting glaciers of Greenland?

Glad you asked. In 2005 Norwegian, Russina, and American scientists issued a report that said Greenland’s ice was thickening, not melting.

Hmm…..

What about the scary claims about heat waves and droughts being brought about by all the high-tech computer models?

Ever watch the local evening news and watch the weather forecast? Ever see all their high-tech gadegtery and computer models and Doppler 23,000 X Viper Extravagaza 10 day forecast? How "accurate" and "right on" they always are?

Computer models are horrible at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. Did you know in the mid-70s the computer models, warned us of a global cooling? The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the drought in the Sahara desert.

Responsible citizens of the globe doing our part to protect the earth and its resources?

Yes

Freak out and cry doom and gloom?

Ridiculous.

Paid for by the committee to stop the FEARMONGERING!!