Thursday, June 30, 2011


Okay- the current media obsession is with Bachman- they have covered her misstatements with a fine tooth comb [more like a plow!]. I mean the main news outlets are going at it. Sure- I realize that calling John Addams a founding father is a bit much [more like a founding son] but why the obsession?

I remember when Newt got into the race- NBC [not their hack political arm- MSNBC] introduced him like this ‘he has been married 3 times- how successful he’ll be with the religious base- we don’t know’- wow- his intro mind you!

What happened to the Chris Matthews rant of no religious test? He went on for months about it- using it- wrongly- to say you can’t question/make your choice of a candidate because you don’t like his particular religious views. Yet the media has recently done polls on ‘would you vote for a Mormon’.

They laud the Broadway play ‘the book of Mormon’ which openly mocks Mormons. Can you imagine a play where you had Muhammad being mocked?

Yet now their fascinated with Bachman’s revisionist history. Okay- I’ll admit that Christians do run into trouble at times with the whole founding father argument. I often hear preachers say ‘the constitution says- we hold these truths to be self-evident’ and then they will argue their point from the ‘moral law’ theory we find in Paul's letter to the Romans- chapter 1.

The apostle does say ‘all men are without excuse- God has revealed himself to us- he has made his truth known’. See- self evident. Actually the language used in the constitution was the ‘anti-Christian’ strain coming out of the European enlightenment.

The Enlightenment [sometimes called the age of reason] came off of the Reformation/Scientific revolutions of the 16-17th centuries. Many of the men I have been studying these last few years were major thinkers in the movement. Right around the 18th century you had a feeling of ‘modern man’ will eventually cast off all these religious restraints and we will enter this new age where the human intellect will rule.

Most of these thinkers did not reject a belief in God- they simply rejected the institutional view of religion. They fell into the category of Deism.

Now- Deism argued that we do not need Christianity- the church- the bible- to know right and wrong. But that enlightened man knew these truths by nature [that’s where the Romans 1 argument comes in]. But when the deist made this argument- he was in fact approaching it from an anti-Christian viewpoint.

Jefferson actually wanted the language to read ‘we hold these truths to be sacred’ but Franklin prided himself in interjecting ‘non-Christian’ [pro deist] language instead- and Walla- we have ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident’.

Okay- so you can see we all have a little bit of revisionism in us.

I’m not a fan of Bachman- to be honest about it. But it’s too early to be flooding the airwaves with such obvious vitriol against the woman. Geez- cover her ideas.

I’m an ex-Navy Corpsman- as a defense of Bachman many right wingers have been showing the infamous speech of the president- where he called the guys ‘corpse men’ around 3 times [you know- that monitor does not sound the words out for you]. And of course the right has to go thru the record and show all the instances where the media actually covers up the faults of their favorite guy.

Yes- to be honest- they do stuff like this- all the time. But I wish we could simply debate the various sides- be honest about our view- and then move on from there. The left always accuse the right of being partisan- yet I think they are just as bad- and just as misinformed on many issues, its pride that makes them think they are truly above everyone else.

Let me finish with an example. One day I was hanging out with the homeless guys- sure- a few drunks- a few dope heads- the usual crowd. And a new guy shows up. He claims to be an ex professor that taught at Berkeley in the past.

As the conversation grew- he began ‘teaching’ the course that he taught at Berkeley. It was a course on ANE myths [ancient near east myths]. He went on to cover the fact that other societies had their own versions of biblical stories. They had flood stories [Noah] creation accounts [Genesis] and stuff like that.

Now- I usually do not ‘do theology’ when hanging in the streets- but I couldn’t resist. So- as luck would have it [bad?] I just happened to be familiar with ANE myths- and the apologetic rebuttal to the argument- so I jumped into the fray.

I went on to tell the professor that I too was familiar with his course- and I went down the list- point by point- refuting his ideas.

I explained that just because these other stories do exist- that in no way means the biblical account is fake- as a matter of fact- if these things did actually occur- you would expect other societies to have their own versions. I gave him a few more basic points like this- and left it alone [you know- when you do street apologetics like this- things can get rough- almost as dangerous as a Wisconsin Supreme court justice meeting].

As this enlightened liberal professor sat there- listening to what looked to be his last rung on the ladder being kicked out from under him [lost his home- wife- everything- the only thing left was his superior intellect over the average idiot- one of those types of mindsets].

He realized that he was being thoroughly refuted [for the 1st time?] by some homeless bum from Texas [I play the part well]. I mean- a homeless ‘redneck’ no less.

He simply stared straight ahead- the smell of alcohol [and various drugs] wafting thru the air- and he looked up and said ‘I am going to leave now- and go put a bullet in my head’ [his head- not mine].

Now- whether or not he carried out his mission- I don’t know. But he was the classic example of a person- who seemed educated- who prided himself in not being like the rest of the ‘idiots’ of the world- and it was difficult for him to realize that his view- no matter how sincerely held- was only one view. It is possible in life for us to be wrong- or for us to be as misinformed as the other person.

I have no idea how long the current media fascination will last with Bachman- I’m sure they’ll find another thing to fasten upon- of course when their side calls a bunch of servicemen ‘dead men- corpse men’ well- something as egregious as that- that will never make it to the air. But go ahead- another round of the Book of Mormon- watching the clip air- making the ‘Mormon/Christian’ look like an absolute idiot- and saying it openly- well the media has plenty of time for that.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011


This past Sunday Chris Wallace hosted Michele Bachman on his morning show [Fox] he had just come off a previous Sunday show controversy- he had on Jon Stewart and it got a little heated. Overall I think Stewart ‘blew it’ but I think Wallace blew it with Michele.

The present controversy was him asking Bachman ‘are you a flake’. Bachman responded well- but began with ‘first of all, that question is insulting’. She was right. She went on to explain her credentials- and what Wallace thought might be a cringing, defensive woman- turned out to be a capable, smart woman- who treated Wallace like he was a defense witness.

Then a strange thing happened- MSNBC ran with the story- they covered it with the righteous indignation of a prophet [false?] Oh they tore into Fox ‘how could they dare be so demeaning to such a wonderful woman- smart- cunning- savvy- they should be ashamed of themselves!’

Sounds good, the only problem was they are the network that spent the last year publicly demeaning the woman- day after day- relentlessly. They had a photo of the woman- you know some smart camera angle- it made her look like a wild eyed demon- they showed that photo like the N.Y. press covered Weiner.

They then did the most on air offensive thing I have ever seen. During the Repubs election [congress] they interviewed Bachman. She showed up- just like a liberal might show up with a Fox reporter. Basically you treat the guest well- even if you go hard on the person [a skill Lawrence O’Donnell has yet to learn]. As Chris Matthews is talking with the woman- he asks her a question- she does what lots of folk do- she basically used her time to get her talking points across- and avoided the question.

Now- what the interviewer normally does is asks it one or 2 more times- and if no response- just move on. But Matthews says [paraphrasing here] ‘are you hypnotized- has someone hypnotized you- maybe an alien ship?’ he went on to demean her in a way I have never seen a reporter do. And in the background you heard Eugene Robinson [a regular on the show] openly laughing in mockery.

So after portraying the woman as an idiot- publicly- for at least a year- they then decide to critique Fox for Wallace’s disrespect to the woman- these guys are shameless.

But- that gets me into a guest host they had on the other night. Ron Reagan Jr. He did alright- I’m not a big fan of his dad- though he has become an Icon in some circles. Somehow Reagan got into the Evolution/Creationism debate. Now- most times when these guys try this- they fall flat. I have critiqued MSNBC guys before- Catholics- who have slandered their own church. They say ‘the Catholic church teaches this’ and they mislead their own Catholic listeners- and I try and write on it and give the actual Catholic view [being I study all Christian theologies]. So little Reagan goes into this thing on Evolution- he says ‘look- I don’t care what people want to believe- they can believe the moon [or earth?] is made out of cheese with a giant turtle on top- but don’t bring that into the science room’.

Most of these guys have no idea about the debate. The other day my 2nd oldest came over to show me her degree- she finally finished and got her degree in Biology. Over the years I would have good discussions with her- on a fairly good level- about biology. I have read and studied Biology, Physics, History- lots of subjects over the years- and it helps when you’re conversing with others in their respective fields.

And the talks I have had were in no way controversial- my daughter actually learned stuff- things that she was familiar with- yet she realized the points I was making- were indeed factual. Yet these points- as obvious as they were- were indeed left out of her courses- she saw that. [Noah Feldman calls this the ‘secularization of the public schools’- the fear that the public school system has when dealing with religion- or even covering it fairly when teaching history- or the impact of religious thought on science. The fact is that both Evolutionary Theory- and ‘Creationism’ [more preferably Intelligent Design] have religious aspects to them- they both espouse ultimate causes that cannot be seen with the naked eye].

Now- I wasn’t talking ‘cheese with a turtle on it’ you must be quite the ignoramus to think that the debate between intelligent design and Darwin’s theory is still at that stage. I mean there are many scientists- unbelievers- who are ready to reject the full idea of Darwin. Why?

There are lots of things that we could go into on these subjects- but a few major points are these;

When Darwin [Charles Darwin- popularized modern Evolutionary theory- lived in the 1800's] espoused his theory- he thought that it was possible that all life came from one ‘common ancestor’. He came up with the idea [it was around before actually] because of his observation of the Finch’s [birds] he observed on his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands.

Darwin realized- and stated in his books [On the Origin of the Species, the Descent of Man] that eventually science would advance to the point where he would either be proven right or wrong- I think that day has arrived- and so do many scientists.

I read an article/quote by one of the Leaky daughters [from the famous Leaky family who have done much in the area of Evolution] and she basically said ‘we have to admit that the obvious lack of evidence is leading us to re think the theory’.

Basically science has shown us- that the foundational plank to Darwin’s theory- has absolutely no scientific proof. For Darwin’s theory to be true- you need the cells of one living thing to eventually ‘evolve’ into the cells of another living thing. Not only has this phenomenon never been observed to happen in the natural environment- they can’t even make it happen in the controlled environment- in the lab.

Millions of man hours and dollars have been spent in trying to cause the cell of one thing to ‘evolve’ into the cell of another thing [basically they do these experiments with fruit flies because they breed rapidly] and one of the most provable, observable facts of modern biology is the fact that the cells of living things don’t do this- ever- never- not once!

So what Miss Leakey was saying was- if we have spent so much time and effort in trying to show that this does happen- and after all of the years of observable study [true science] this has never been observed to have happened, we need to admit that science is showing us that this does not occur.

Basically the criticism of Darwin is the fact that the most basic plank of the theory- has indeed been shown to be ‘un observable’ science is unable to make- or observe this happening.

Okay- there’s a lot more that can be said on this- and there have been many good things that have come down to us from Darwin’s ideas- indeed Natural Selection does take place- but it’s limited to the particular species- it doesn’t ‘cross over’ from one species to another. So we do credit the man for some good things.

But then- for anyone to think this debate is still on the level of ‘a cheese planet with a turtle on top’ geez- even Bachman knows better than that!

Sunday, June 26, 2011


The other night N.Y. passed gay marriage [or marriage equality]. They are not the 1st state to do this- but some in the media hailed it as a great advance for civil rights. I spoke to a Catholic friend who lives in the area- he’s an older brother- and he was really upset about it.

I think I caught him off guard by telling him it really didn’t ‘upset’ me- not like I lost a battle [right winger] of some sort. I told him I obviously have a different position than Governor Cuomo- but I’m not real mad about the thing.

I understand why some people are- and I also told my friend that my position is basically the same position that his church holds- I think homosexuality is ‘a sin’ [like many other heterosexual sins!] but I think the ‘right versus the left’ approach does no good- it seems to just alienate people

A few months ago our local high school made it to CNN because of a debate between some girl who wanted to start a straight/gay club on campus. You had the school say no- even though they did allow a Christian club to meet. The ACLU got involved and before you knew it they were all picketing for/against the club.

As I watched the thing on the tube I saw some local preachers standing out there- a few feet away from the kids- holding signs and shouting ‘it’s an abomination’.

Then you saw the gay kids- who also had the support of some liberal preachers- they were holding signs that said ‘God loves everyone’. It just seemed ‘non Jesus like’ to see the older men- railing against the young girl [the lesbian girl] and shouting in the streets about her being an abomination.

The point being we need to tell people the truth about what is in the bible- and what the church [predominantly] teaches- and then avoid ‘going to war’ with people.

As I’m continuing to read different works on philosophy and modernity- I recently came across Daniel Dennet- a contemporary atheist/thinker. Dennet questions the ‘morality’ of teaching morals [religion] to kids. He espouses the question of the whole idea of religious teaching/tradition. Is it ‘right’ to teach ‘what’s right’?

Okay- I’m sure he is a smart man [they tell me so] but he of course is falling into the classic mistake of thinking he can argue from a foundation of ‘oughtness’ while claiming we should not have these types of foundations.

Basically you can’t argue a moral position [is something right- wrong] if you reject the reality of morality itself. This mistake is easily refuted in the field of apologetics. Sam Harris [another contemporary atheist] makes these same arguments.

I found it interesting to hear Governor Cuomo and other supporters of the law- they were oozing with moral language ‘we are proud to be part of the struggle for the rights of all people’ and other language like this. I’m sure these well meaning folk don’t realize they are contradicting their core argument ‘who is society- the church- to say what’s right or wrong!’ And then they say ‘it’s wrong for them to think that way’.

Okay- I hope you see the point. Immanuel Kant saw this some 300 years ago when the ‘age of reason’ was just taking off. Many thinkers of his day began questioning the wisdom of having religion/morality as part of the fabric of society. Kant recognized the need for the basic idea of right and wrong [What he called ‘oughtness’ you know what you ought to do] and even though he disagreed with Descartes’- he did not believe you could ultimately prove God through reason- yet he saw the need for ‘God’ to exist in the fabric of human society- in his mind there had to be an ultimate judge who could carry out justice- and there had to exist a basic idea of what you should and should not do.

These debates are long and can go on forever.

In Matthew 13 Jesus gave us a story about Gods kingdom. He said it’s like a field. A farmer goes out and plants good seed. Then when everyone was sleeping- an enemy went out and planted ‘bad seed’.

When the plants came up- his workers asked if they should go out and pull all the bad crop out. The boss said no- just leave them alone- in the final harvest he will deal with them- but it wasn’t their job to go pull them out prematurely.

Sometimes we [the church] are like the workers- we see ‘bad seed’ things that we recognize are not healthy for the field- we think ‘let’s go dig them out’. But God says ‘I’ll deal with the bad seed in my time- if you think it’s your job to go around pulling up all the bad weeds- you might hurt some good wheat too’.

I in no way ‘rejoice’ over the N.Y. vote- but I feel no urge to go ‘pull the bad seed out’ some of what we think is bad- might turn out to be good in the end.

Saturday, June 25, 2011


Let’s talk some about the role of the church in society. Many years ago I had a friend who was a preacher/pastor- at the time some people kindly told him ‘brother- I know Jesus is the answer- but you need to also teach- you can’t just say ‘Jesus is the way’ all the time’.

Were they right? In a way- yes. Let me explain. In the book of Isaiah we read about the purpose of Jesus [chapter 11]. Jesus came to preach the gospel [good news] to the poor- set captives free- to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

The book of Amos [a prophet in the Old Testament] shows Amos railing against the rich- the powerful- as he defends the poor in society. Part of ‘the gospel’ is speaking out against injustices in society- telling those in power ‘your day is coming- you have trampled down the innocent- abused the immigrant- and God hears their cry’.

Yes- a part of the ministry of the church is to address these abuses in society. Now- what happens when the church casts off this job? It gets picked up by any/all others who are willing to run with it. So you have ‘the media’ or even a comic like Jon Stewart- anyone else who is willing to speak out against injustices- uneven scales- these will fill the void if Gods people won’t.

If you read the ministry of Jesus- the things he did and said- he often came up against religious forms of holiness. Those in society who thought their purpose was to- well be ‘religious’. That is they made a special class out of religion. They often engaged in public displays of it [prayer- fasting to be seen of men].

They valued their own religious experience as the primary thing- when they perceived man getting in the way of their expression of religion- they were willing to ‘sacrifice him’ [literally] in order for their own religious cause to gain influence [they said of Jesus- if he keeps doing this we will lose our position of power and influence].

At the end of the day- these religious folk saw their own view of religion as the primary thing- it took precedence over all other things- even people themselves.

Now- when the church reduces her mission to ‘religious speech’ that is when they refuse to engage in society- to do what the prophets did in the bible- defend the poor- rail against injustice- when Gods people leave this part of ‘preaching the gospel’ out- then they unknowingly have given in to the temptation to see their practice of religion- as simply a ‘religious thing’.

In a way- they have become like the religious folk of Jesus day- so busy carrying out their religious tasks- that the voiceless of society have no one to advocate for them.

We are living in a day where many major upheavals are taking place- I think the ‘average person’ does not fully understand the seriousness of what’s going on in the world today. It is quite possible that the U.S. will default on her debt. And that we will face a credit crisis equal to that of Greece- where the politicians have pandered to the people to a point where the people are rising up in the streets because they refuse to see the reality of the situation.

There are threads of this taking place right now in this country- at the current rate we are going- our debt will equal our GDP in 10 years- that’s really bad.

As we have these debates- we must remember that the poor and impoverished of the world count to God- the cause of the illegal alien means a lot to God- these issues are not just nationalistic- they are of concern to God.

As we move down this treacherous road over these next few years- lets not forsake that part of the gospel that calls us to speak up for the poor- to speak truth to power- and to expose injustice wherever we see it- not just on the opposing team.


This week the ‘raise the debt ceiling’ talks broke down. Eric Cantor- the repubs top negotiator- walked out of the talks in frustration. The Dems want to raise taxes [actually cut certain tax breaks] and the Repubs want to only cut spending.

We [govt] have a 14.3 trillion ‘limit’ on the national credit card and in August we hit the limit. Some say if we don’t raise the limit it will be catastrophic- others say raising it would be.

I do hold to the more liberal view- that we should probably raise the thing- but make sure we also get real cuts- not fake stuff.

When Cantor walked out of the talks the Repubs said ‘look- we are negotiating for something you [Dems and pres] should have taken care of over a year ago’ [present a budget]. The Repubs said ‘do your job- present your side’!

Are they right? Yes. The reason the president and Dems have not presented a budget [going into 2 full years without one!] is because they really did not want to bite the bullet and make choices that would get people mad. So as they waited and waited- the Repubs did a daring [some say stupid] thing and in the house they presented the Ryan plan.

Before Paul Ryan presented the plan some said ‘no- don’t do it- we are in the minority [the Repubs don’t hold the executive office or the senate] and it’s really not our responsibility to present something’. Some conservatives said if you present one- the left will only use it to attack the Repubs and will not present their own plan.

The president actually gave a speech a year or so ago that warned of this- he said we have to deal with debt in a serious way- and if both sides play games- accuse the other side of wanting to kill grandma- then the country will suffer.

So Ryan put the plan out- and within days the commercials ran- they found a Ryan lookalike and they showed you him wheeling grandma over the cliff. What was the president’s response to this childishness? He was the lead ‘child’ [a child shall lead them?]

Yes- the president went on the air and railed against the Repubs plan- he said they want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and the poor.

Fine- I personally think Ryan did go too far- and I think we should do both- tax ‘increases’ and cuts. But Cantor saw the writing on the wall- that it is indeed the president’s job to do a budget- they didn’t do one- the Dems stalled- endlessly on the thing.

And instead of using the Ryan plan as an excuse to do some cuts and say ‘look- Ryan forced me’ instead- the president resorted to the thing he warned against- he did use it as a political tool to help his cause in the upcoming election.

Now- this is what makes me seriously wonder whether or not we will avoid a real Greek style debt crisis. Those in the know [on both sides] realize that the biggest expense that the country can’t afford- is actually the projected rise in Medicare costs down the road. It’s going to eventually ‘eat up the entire economy’ [Bill Clinton].

So if the Dems decide to simply use this as a political tool [which they have done] then the only way we will ever deal with it is for the Repubs to force something thru- while the Dems say ‘those darn baby/grandma killers- they made us do it’.

But the Repubs said ‘hell- you know what- every time you make us take the fall- we get the blame- and you [Mr. pres] are acting like you’re in the minority- you and the Dems are not presenting any budget- going on 2 years- and getting away with making us do the dirty work- and then blaming us all the way- while we are really saving your skin!’

I see their point. So- we have about a month to go- and after Cantor walked out- I thought here might be some hope- you know- both sides cooling off some- another round of golf? How did the left describe Cantors frustration- quote ‘the cry baby wet his pants and ran home to mommy’- Ah- we could analyze this statement- try and read some hope into it- maybe they were concerned about Cantors family life? Well heck- I give up- I mean they didn’t even use the word mother. The globes future depends on the ‘adults in the room’ I didn’t know adults wet their pants and run home to mommy?

Thursday, June 23, 2011


Last night the president gave his speech on the war- he will withdraw 10,000 troops this year- another 20,000 by September of next year. That leaves around 60,000 going into 2013.

When the president came into office there were 30,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan- he doubled it to a little over 60- then did a 30,000 man surge [West Point speech].

Many anti war folk [like me] were not happy with the 60- never mind the surge. Yet we are staring at 90,000 for the next year- then down to 60- and they are talking about leaving 20-25 thousand forever!

Last week I caught a CNN special called Wiki Wars- they covered the Julian Assange case. Assange is the ‘Omega man’ looking Australian who has shaken the world with his on line ‘leaking’ factory [Wiki Leaks]. The show covered his nomadic upbringing- his mission to change the world- and his determination to expose corruption wherever he finds it.

His work has been recognized by Amnesty International [for exposing corrupt leaders who slaughtered innocents] and overall his mission has been very noble.

Eventually he would come into possession of thousands of leaked on line documents that would expose many hidden discussions of our military. He also released the now [in] famous video called ‘Collateral Murder’.

The video shows our guys hovering over a vehicle in Iraq [I think it’s Iraq?] and the audio allows you to hear the conversation. As we watch the enemy walking back and forth- seemingly oblivious to the chopper watching them [strange?] our guys radio communication is describing their contact with their commander.

As they wait for the go ahead to shoot- they finally get the o.k. They then show the video of our helicopter shooting the men. Most of the guys are killed quickly- others run. One guy is wounded and laying in the street- another vehicle pulls up and tries to help him- we then blow the hell out of him too.

Then something happens- one of the guys starts running from the first vehicle with a young child in his arms- our guys say ‘wow- he has a kid with him- that’s what he gets for being so stupid to bring his kid with him’ [our guys think they are enemy combatants].

The scene looks terrible- especially when we later find out that all these guys were reporters- mostly working for Reuter’s news service.

As the CNN host questions the military commander who is watching the video with him- the commander explains that our guys did ‘what they were supposed to do’. That these reporters should not have been in a hot zone- walking around with their camera equipment- which was mistaken for a rocket launcher.

This military leader actually justified our actions. Then as the show progressed- they got into the Wiki Leaks founder who released these videos. He gave the standard U.S. govt. line that the leaking of these videos/emails was unjust- that it might cause harm to people- and therefore our govt. is justified to go after Assange and the soldier [Bradley Manning] who supposedly leaked the stuff.

I found it strange to see this commander ‘justify’ our killing of the reporters- while at the same time condemning the person who uncovered this act.

This week NATO bombed another civilian house in Libya- killed a couple of kids [one a baby] and a few civilians. Once again- they released another statement saying ‘this house was a command and control operations base’ which means they thought Gadhaffi [or his men] might be there. Now- they have done this before- they kill innocent people, kids- then they justify the action.

I was wondering how long it would take before the Western media got off the Obama bandwagon and reported the truth- stop simply regurgitating the words of NATO and report the facts on the ground.

Surprisingly, as I read the article- the report said that as the journalists arrived at the home that was bombed- there were other Libyans who immediately starting saying ‘Gadhaffi blew up this house to blame it on NATO’.

These reporters have been fed this before- and simply believed it. This time as they investigated- they indeed found out that we and NATO simply blew the hell out of a civilian home- and killed a new born along with another child.

The home was a political supporter’s residence. Now- I certainly realize that these actions are not meant to kill innocent people- and I know our guys did not mean to kill reporters. But when we as a nation lie about this stuff- cover it up to a degree- and then actually seek the execution of those who leaked the evidence- then we are doing unjust things.

I heard the reasoning behind why when this type of info is leaked in a traditional way [N.Y. times, etc.] that these leaks are considered very noble- uncovering the secret agenda’s of the powerful. But then the person being queried said when the leaks are being released ‘on line- without actual ink and paper’ then yes- we are justified in seeking the execution of the leakers.

It’s amazing that we accept this type of reasoning without question.

I’m glad we are starting to draw down our troops- right now in Afghanistan we are spending a couple of billion every week- we are facing a fiscal crisis at home that might eventually ruin this entire nation. And China is digging copper out of the Afghanistan ground- making deals with the corrupt Afghan govt.- and we are footing the bill for the security so China can enrich themselves and the leaders of Afghanistan- all at the same time when we are about to default on our debt- to China!

There just seems to be too many things wrong with this picture. I in no way blame our brave fighting men and women for these atrocious acts that do take place during times of war- but I do blame those in power, those who know about these acts- who seek to cover them up- and then after they are leaked- our govt. goes after them- seeking to raise the level of these leaks to the crime of treason- so we can execute the leakers. These things are unjust- and we need to recognize this fact.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011


I figured today I would just share my true feelings with you guys- what about it?

These last few days there has been somewhat of a firestorm over the comments made by the radio personality Neil Bortz. First off- I want to admit that I do not like the guy- at all. He is the only radio person who I actually called in to complain about with the local station who airs him.

I do not like his talk about Blacks- and I also cringe when listening to Rush do the same stuff at times. To be honest- I have not heard/read the controversial statement- maybe it’s better that I didn’t, so you can check me out on a theory.

I was watching the Ed Shultz show and they were discussing the comments Bortz made about arriving in Atlanta. They said Bortz made a statement that encouraged Whites to arm themselves and go out and shoot Black people- ‘fill the streets with bodies’. As much as I dislike Bortz- for the life of me I can’t believe the man said this.

Second- he had 2 Black guys on the show- and they of course condemned the statement from Bortz and did go on to rightfully critique other racially tinged language that Bortz has indeed used in the past. As the show progressed they attacked Bortz over a statistical number he gave about crime in the Black community.

They simply said ‘can you believe Bortz teaches that the DNA of Black people is predisposed to crime’? Again another accusation- highly charged- that seems to be wrong on the face of it [to state a crime rate among any community- or the high percentage of Blacks in the prison system, which I have spoken out against as a failure of both the system and the Black leaders- to state factual numbers- if they are true- is not saying you believe that Blacks have crime built into their DNA- and to accuse anyone of this- whether they be left or right- is highly inflammable and wrong- just as wrong as the actual other racial statements Bortz has made in the past].

Now- when I see these same shows host Sharpton- or Jackson- or even Farrakhan from time to time [I saw him on a panel in Chicago]. I ask myself ‘self- why do these same media folk- who rage at the right- have on people from the left who are just as racist’?

Sharpton is accepted freely on many channels- though he has incited murder, hatred and has used nonstop racial rhetoric throughout his life.

He incited violence in calling non Black businesses in Black areas as being ‘interlopers’. He has accused white people of raping Black girls- even after the facts showed the poor girl was lying [Tawanna Brawley] and till this day- he still will not admit the thing was a hoax.

Jackson has called Jewish areas ‘Hymie town’. And of course Farrakhan is nonstop in his hatred for the white man. Former senator Byrd spoke of ‘Niggers’ [the late senator who used to be a leader in the KKK and fought hard against civil rights- he was a Democrat].

Ed Shultz himself was pulled off the air for a few weeks for calling Laura Ingram a ‘Slut’. She is a right wing radio host. And of course Harry Reid said he thought Obama had a chance- he was a ‘light skinned Black man- who didn’t speak like a Black man- only when he wanted to’.

Of course the hypocrisy of one side seeing prejudice only in the other is blatant.

In all these cases- I regret having to use the language that I just did. Some of you read this post because you thought 'damn- I knew John would go over the cliff sooner or later’ and you thought today was that day!

Others read because this shock language has that effect- if you have a choice between reading a post with the words NIGGER- well that draws more attention than more enlightened speech.

We all have our demons- we all battle racial attitudes in life. And if we want to critique a person for their wrong speech [which I do think Bortz uses!] then we need to be careful that we don’t falsely accuse the man of something so racially charged that it might actually incite real violence in the streets.

For MSNBC once again to have allowed one of their guys to go on the air and to charge that another person called for the shooting of Blacks in the streets- or who said that this person believed that crime was built into the DNA of Blacks- if Bortz did not say this- then Shultz needs to take another leave of absence- for good.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

[1674] ROGUE?

This week the congress began putting pressure on the president over Libya. Traditionally presidents go to the congress for consultation when hostilities are involved. Bush consulted congress over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

When the speaker of the house- John Boehner- lead the majority of congress in rejecting the tougher position of Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich’s bill- that would demand the president pull out of Libya- Boehner instead asked for an explanation of why the president simply is not following the war powers resolution [having to go to congress after 60-90 days of hostilities in a foreign land]. To the surprise of just about every legal analyst- including many Democrats- the president made a case that what was happening in Libya did not amount to ‘hostilities’.

Now- Boehner is a longtime insider- he knows the way Washington works. He could not believe that the office of legal counsel would have agreed to this. The president purposefully avoided answering that specific question.

Finally- some insiders- more than likely Democrats- could not believe the president did indeed reject the office of legal counsels advice- and instead claimed to make the call based on his own legal opinion [to just about every legal analyst- this is going rogue].

Finally the truth leaked out- and it was revealed that the president took the unprecedented step in trying to define air warfare as 'non hostile action’.

As I read the news stories- and listened to both sides- I could not understand why the president did this. While it is true that most presidents reject the war powers resolution [the act itself] yet they usually follow the advice of their office of legal counsel.

That is the executive branch’s legal arm that gets the advice of both the Pentagon lawyers as well as the Justice dept. It just seemed to be the decision of a man who tries to present himself in public as a reasonable man- but behind the scenes he is a very different person.

I also saw this in the president’s ‘pettiness’ with political enemies. As a retired Texas firefighter- when we have had bad wild land fires- we always- in every case I know of- got federal aid when meeting the criteria of a natural disaster. To my shock- this past year the president- for the first time ever [as long back as I remember] told Texas ‘screw you’ yes- our guys- the ones who got hurt- the ones who paid out of pocket to go to the scene- driving miles from home in their personal vehicles- for the first time ever were told ‘no’. The president told Texas Fire Fighters [and its Repub governor] no!

The majority of these firefighters are union guys whose dues go primarily to Democrat causes. I was shocked that a sitting U.S. president would do this.

Then came the school funding issue. My oldest daughter recently got a teaching job with the public schools. During last year’s political wars- Texas was the only state that the president withheld federal funding to. There were some political games begin played- but at the end of the day Texas was the only state that the president denied funding to. Eventually it got passed- against the president’s wishes- when it was slipped in under the Continuing Resolution to fund the govt.

I could go on and on about stuff like this- examples that I have never before seen- cases where this president has gone after political enemies to an extreme- where even other Democrats have said ‘you must be mad’. There have been ‘leakers’ during this administration- like all others. This president has been the only one [in recent memory] who has tried to raise the level of the leak to ‘treason’ and thus making it a federal crime punishable by death. It’s almost unbelievable that he has actually used his office like this.

As we as a nation try and move forward- there will always be 2 sides to these debates- what troubles me is it seems to me that for whatever reason- maybe the president did not realize the pressures involved with the job- but for whatever reason he really has done some really bad stuff- I mean the firefighter decision was a real eye opener to me- showing me that he is not mature in these decisions- too petty to have done these types of things to get back at a political enemy.

Hopefully we can get beyond these things as a country- but for my friends to have been turned down federal aid- while risking their lives- that’s being petty at the edge of danger- that’s like going after the leakers- and seeking their death- that’s real bad.

NOTE- Over the last few years I heard reports that Senator Obama did indeed do politics this way in Chicago- that Rham Emanuel and other political cronies threatened people- with physical harm. I never really believed these stories- but after seeing all these examples above- I began thinking that these stories were probably true [putting a dead fish in an opponent’s bed/ room- just like the mafia movie!]. These examples are bad- I could have given the story of a Texas political blogger- yikes! - Who was just interviewed on national TV. He was stalked- the F.B.I. went thru his trash- videotaped his family from a secret camera planted across the street- and it was revealed that the administration contacted the I.R.S to go after him. This U.S. citizen was targeted- and his family- because he was on the other side of the political isle. Stuff like this would have never passed under other administrations- never.

Saturday, June 18, 2011


Let me give this one last shot [on Face book- to all my blog readers- of course I will keep posting there!]. Since I’ve been on face book I have enjoyed posting/commenting with old friends. Every so often I would get notices that said ‘so and so asked this question’ or stuff like that- little apps [games] that I know nothing about. Sometimes the questions seemed a little ‘weird’ to say the least.

Look- I’m an adult- heard it all [and have messed up in life many times- not just the on line games- but the real thing- yes- like most every one else in life]. So anyway these stupid things didn’t ‘offend’ me- I just felt they weren’t where I wanted to go on the site.

So at first I would just block that particular game- not the person [by the way- this was more than one person]. Then they would use another game. A few times the thing showed up on my main page- and I couldn’t delete the thing!

So finally I just blocked [or blocked their posts] from my page. Then one ingenious person waited till a mutual friend posted- and they used their post [which was on my page] to give me a wonderful ‘F—K YOU’ note- wow- it just made my day.

Look- if you are a ‘friend’ on my page- and you let people post things to me like that- I’m gonna block you- sorry. You want to tell me that in a personal email- where my kids don’t have to see it- fine- but ‘friends’ letting their friends do that- sorry- your blocked.

Okay- why the anti liberal stuff? As a political blogger- I listen to all sides. I listen to Rush- Hannity- Olbermann [he starts Monday on current t.v.] Maddow- the whole crew.

I have found it amazing that the ‘ultra liberals’ are just as bad as the hard right. But for the most part they carry a belief that they are way above the average man- I rarely see this with the hard right.

So it takes patience to deal with the libs- much more than the right [I consider myself neither]. So a few weeks ago I noticed something- MSNBC decided they were going to show the shirtless picture of the Republican congressman who quit right after he was caught trying to pick up girls on line.

Okay- he messed up. But all of a sudden MSNBC began showing the pic. Every day. Even during primetime. They laughed- smirked- they were obviously going to run with this picture right up until the election of next year.

Then what happened? The Weiner story broke and it just seemed stupid for them to follow this strategy. Their main network [NBC- Brian Williams] received criticism for not even covering the story at first- I applauded Williams at the time because I felt the story did not deserve the coverage it got.

I saw Williams report ‘he was forced from office because of semi nude pictures’ an outright lie- he was fully nude- erect- and possibly doing it with kids. Now- in the real world you do not call this ‘a sexless sex scandal’ the A.P. reported it this way- many commentators did too. I even saw an editorial comic that showed Weiner getting in trouble- the comic said ‘shirtless photos’ on his suit case.

Smart- huh- giving the impression that all he did was take off his shirt- just like the repub! Now- I didn’t rejoice over Weiner- I prayed for the man [for real!] but the ultra libs rejoiced over the repub- they were running primetime with the pic months after the event. These guys are insufferable!

Then I read an A.P. [Associated Press] story on how the Obama recovery was being ‘drug down’ by those darn states! Yes- the report said the recovery was working on ‘the federal level’ but the states [aha- those new Repub. Governors] they were dragging the recovery down by their bad economies- I mean they must think the general public are complete idiots- that’s what the left thinks- and they show this all the time.

I mean what are the states? They are 50 pieces of the whole country- there is no such thing as a ‘federal recovery’ being dragged down by the states- please- we are not all that dumb.

But it’s stuff like this that makes it hard to deal with the real problems we [and the global economy] are facing. If both sides do not come to some type of agreement- which will include dealing with the rocketing cost of healthcare [yes- Medicare will need to be dealt with- maybe not the Ryan plan- but more than just making a political statement- like Bill Clinton said- we cant let Medicare eat up the entire U.S. economy].

Greece is on the verge of default- I don’t know if Germany is gonna keep footing the bill. And their bond rating is 3 points below junk status! That’s bad- a nation defaulting like that. Those of you who watch this stuff- our own nation is going back into another recession [some feel it never recovered in the first place].

If the media keep playing the games that they have- then they are just adding to the problem. Did Obama’s stimulus work? Not the way he hoped- but most of the 800 billion simply staved off the job losses at the state and local level. The money was spent to prop up the states until a recovery happened. That was the real plan- it didn’t work.

Austin Goolsbee jumped ship while there was still time- and Paul Krugman [liberal N.Y. times economist] is running with the story that the stimulus should have been around 2 trillion- yes he’s also covering his back side.

All in all we need to come to the table and work as one- MSNBC [and NBC] should be ashamed at their continued gloating- months after the downfall of a human being- deciding to run his picture night after night- and then lying about ‘their guy’ saying he too was shirtless- they played the game and pretended they were above the ‘average guy’ you know- the viewing public- the ones who they think believe that the ‘darn states are ruining the recovery’- yeah- that bunch.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011


I’ve been wanting to get back to some of our studies- but the news cycle has been hot these last few weeks [not just Weiner!] and I have been sidetracked somewhat. One of the other important news stories was the going away speech by defense secy. Gates.

He tore into NATO and raked them over the coals for their willingness to vote Yes on intervention- then letting the U.S. do the majority of the work. There are 28 nations that make up the alliance [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. Yet in Afghanistan there are a total of around 140 thousand troops. The media constantly report ‘NATO troops were killed- or accidently hit a civilian house’. We get desensitized- we think these are actually troops from NATO- like these other 28 nations are doing this stuff. Out of the 140,000 troops- 100 thousand are U.S. troops. I mean 28 other nations?

In Libya- once again the entire alliance voted to go in [or abstain- though ‘going in’ meant different things to different nations] and after a few weeks of ‘going in’ once again we are pulling 70 percent of the load. Gates blasted the alliance- saying with all these nations’ troops- they have a hard time standing up 25-40 thousand troops. These other 27 nations can’t even supply a regular fighting force of 25 thousand troops!

Hillary Clinton spoke out [rightfully] against a new resurgence of ‘colonialism’ taking place on the African continent. Colonialism is the abuse of 1st world nations stripping 3rd world nations of their vital natural resources and doing this with the consent of ‘paid off’ higher ups in these ‘stripped’ nations [this definition obviously doesn’t speak about plain colonialism- but in modern public speak that’s what they are talking about].

In Africa, China has been doing this now for a number of years- they have been ‘investing’ heavily in buying up the worlds natural resources- and the civilian populace living in these nations are extremely poor. If other nations want to partner in trade and investment with poorer countries- that’s fine. But don’t take the resources from these countries while the people living there are dying from poverty.

Around the turn of the 20th century you had the rise of what’s commonly called ‘the social gospel’. This Christian movement concerned itself with the broader mandate of the gospel that deals with bringing justice to the poor and hurting people of the world. Dealing not just with ‘saving souls’ but also with creating a more just society on the planet right now.

While this movement had its critics- it did not go as far as the later development of Liberation Theology. Now- once again in our ‘reductionist’ news media- we have managed to simplify our understanding of Liberation theology- and have basically presented it as some satanic movement that simply wishes to implement Marxist ideology into the American experience.

Glenn Beck got a hold of a few books [articles?] that showed the church’s criticism of Liberation theology- and it cemented in his mind that all liberation theologians were ‘the enemy’. It did no good to realize that- yes indeed- Obama’s church is a theological offshoot of Liberation theology.

Yes- the good ole Reverend Wright is a Black Liberation theologian and darn proud of it! Liberation theology took the concern of the social gospel a step further- it sought to implement social justice policies by mixing Christian teaching in with political structures. In a way it was a form of Marxism- without Marx’s penchant against religion. To the contrary the Liberation adherents saw this approach as a mandate from Jesus himself.

Liberation theology arose in the last half of the 20th century primarily as a result of what the Catholic church saw taking place in Latin American nations. Once again a type of Colonialism was taking place in this 3rd world region of the world [though they are obviously doing much better today]. And the Catholic church in the region developed a Liberating theology that would deal with these social injustices through political means.

The very influential Catholic bishop of El Salvador- Oscar Romero- would be the lead visionary of the movement at the time. Romero said some very important- and true things at the time. It would be wrong to totally reject all Liberation theologies as ‘satanic’. Romero taught that true theology- true learning and growing in our understanding of God should take place in ‘Base Christian Communities’ as opposed to the ‘institution’. This concept is actually taught in the bible [in my view].

His ideas would give birth to what is known as Feminist theology [Catholic female authors like Fiorenza of Germany or Mary Daly from America] these women were writing in what they saw as institutional oppression from the church against women- that in their view the church has historically repressed women- and they drew from the stream of Liberation theology that sought to ‘free people from oppressive regimes’ it’s just the regime they were speaking about was the church itself!

And yes- the Black liberation theologians would manage to tweak Liberation theology and make it fit their particular struggle for what they saw as a continued repression of the Black race.

All in all liberation theology was a very influential movement- that does indeed have many strains of truth within it.

Then why did the Catholic church have to officially distance itself from the movement? Bishop Romero [who would eventually become the arch Bishop of San Salvador] gained so much influence within the Latin American church- that the Vatican had to finally come out and distance itself from the movement.

Liberation theology was in fact a strange mixture of Marxist ideas- though they were taken from Jesus and the gospels. In the 20th century- right around the same time of Romero's great influence- you had another very influential Catholic leader by the name of Pope John Paul the 2nd. John Paul would eventually become one of the greatest and most influential Popes of all time [that is saying a lot].

One of John Paul’s great achievements was his vital role in the pulling down of the Soviet Union and his stance against communism- especially seen in his own resistance to communism in his home country of Poland.

Now- how could the church be lead by one of the greatest heroes of anti communism of all time- and at the same time have such an influential Arch Bishop operating out of Latin America- who was in fact espousing a form of Communism?

So this page has been written in the books and we have what we have.

Today I think we all need to take a second look at the things we deem [or have heard] are wrong- or satanic. Though I have many disagreements with our president and this current administration- yet I agree with what Hillary said in her warning about the African continent. I also do not think it right to demonize the president because he did indeed attend a Black Liberation church- many of these congregations fully embrace redemption through Christ- and their ‘zeal’ to extend that redemption through the social justice arm of political govt. is not totally wrong- the bible speaks much about human govt. being a tool for social justice in a just society!

But we in America are fixated on more important things- like when the next picture of congressman Weiner will come out- yeah who has time for all this social justice talk anyway.

Saturday, June 11, 2011


I caught a few minutes of Hal Lindsey last night- I very rarely watch ‘religious TV’ any more [with the exception of EWTN] and Lindsey was covering the Rapture and some stuff in Revelation. He did Rev. Chapter 6- the 4 horseman of the Apocalypse. He covered the standard Evangelical view that the 1st horse [rider on the white horse] is the anti-christ.

There is one other reference in Revelation to a rider on a white horse [chapter 19] everyone agrees that this rider is Jesus- yet many evangelicals have developed an interesting view that has the rider on the white horse in chapter 6 as the anti- christ.

The reason? They say look what follows- ‘war, famine, judgment’. But does this chapter [or Revelation] ever describe these judgments as ‘the judgments of anti christ’? No. As a matter of fact- the last few verses of this chapter actually describe the judgments as coming from him who sits on the throne and from the Lamb.

In chapter 19 the reference [of Jesus on the white horse] says he goes forth to ‘make war’. And if you read about these horses in the Old Testament prophets- they talk about God’s Spirit carrying out the judgment.

I don’t want to do a whole thing on who the rider is- after looking at all these verses in context I would say its not anti christ- but Christ [by the way- others do hold to this view- but the majority of ‘prophecy preachers’ USA do not]. The point is we assume stuff- then preach it like that particular view is the only ‘correct one’.

Okay- last night Weiner was being investigated for having contact with young girls on line- minors. The cops were at the house of the girl. Weiner seems to be admitting that yes- I regularly had on line contact with young girls. But during those contacts I was not fully naked and ‘excited’. But then when he clicked over to the 20 year olds- well yes- naked and out there.

Okay- he also said he cant be sure that during all these on line talks that he hadn’t exposed himself to young girls ‘maybe yes- maybe no’. Okay.

Yet at the same time the reason we all found out about this is because he ‘accidently’ posted a crotch picture to 50 thousand strangers on his twitter page. So we have a sitting U.S. congressman who has many experiences with woman on line- he has already sent these pic’s to 50 thousand people.

He also admits contact with underage girls.

And MSNBC [Lawrence O’Donnell] says ‘I don’t see why he cant be the mayor of N.Y.- and I would invite him on tomorrow and not ask a single question about his on line exploits’ none of our business!

Yet these same media folk spent yesterday going through 24,000 emails of Sarah Palin- actually enlisting the publics help ‘come join us America- lets all go through these emails and see what we can find’ [N.Y. Times, Washington Post].

The MSNBC political hacks were drooling at the mouth. Has the media ever done something like this before? Have you ever heard of any public figure [including Obama] who the media said ‘hey world- lets go through 24,ooo emails and see what we can find’. The woman is not even officially running for office right now- some of these emails are to her kids.

Yet you have a sitting Democrat congressman- admittedly sending nude shots of himself to anyone- possible young girls [15?] and MSNBC says ‘that’s none of our darn business’.

A few years ago a right winger put out a book- I think it was titled ‘liberalism is a mental disease’. I’m beginning to wonder.

Friday, June 10, 2011


These last few days I have found it amusing to listen to the various media networks deal with the Weiner scandal. Some have tried to actually justify the fact that ‘he didn’t commit a crime’. True- but if after a few weeks of chatting with young girls who join your site because you are a representative- if after a few weeks you are sending fully nude ‘excited’ photos of yourself to these young girls- geez- you need to go- and fast!

But the interesting thing was to see the elitist mindset at work. One show discussed why this happens to smart politicos- they surmised that the mind of highly advanced politicians [mainly liberal Democrats] functions at such a higher level than the ‘average’ person- that because of this they need multiple outlets for this highly functioning intellect.

I actually have heard this argument used a few times in trying to come up with an explanation of why Obama’s numbers are low- or why the public does not fully support his ideas at times. The reporters would say ‘the average person is not able to fully digest the advanced intellect of the president- he functions almost at the level of a genius [not kidding] and because of this it’s like Einstein trying to explain physics to a 3rd grader’.

Now- pride is one of those sins that comes out- and you don’t know its there- I have it- you have it- yes we all have it. But I find these elite news men humorous- they really seem to struggle, and believe, that they are so far ahead of the ‘gun toting southern idiots’ that their viewers cant see the idiocy of their arguments.

A few weeks ago on MSNBC Rachel Maddow was covering the oil situation. She explained that those who blame Obama for the high gas prices are wrong [to a degree she is right- but when prices went up under Bush- no one dared do an entire show at trying to explain this Phenomenon!]. She then went on to explain that if we drill more in the U.S. that the simple fact that the U.S. is drilling- that does not mean that all the ‘U.S.’ oil goes to us.

She explained- rightfully- that the oil produced here goes into this ‘global market’ and then it simply sells on the global shelf. The problem was at the time she was arguing against those who were saying that the lack of U.S. production could hurt in times of global war- when other oil producing nations go to war. Her defense was ‘either way- U.S. production just goes on a global market’ but the mistake she made was she was arguing economics- when the question at hand was logistics- supply.

It indeed is true that during times of national war and upheaval- enemy nations might well say ‘no more oil for you’. And if our own production is low [even though it might be a foreign company- B.P.] then we are in trouble. During times of crisis our country has the ability to ‘take over’ the actual resource [oil, etc.] and if there are limited regional resources to ‘take over’ then in fact we would be in trouble.

Point? Maddow was arguing economics- when the question at hand was logistics. Okay- I can live with that. But at the same time this network [MSNBC] is the main instigator of the argument ‘we [liberals in general] function on such a higher plane than the average citizen- that’s why Obama’s numbers are low’. It really is a sad thing.

I hope Weiner can in some way redeem himself and his family. Comparing him to Vitter, Foley, Clinton- etc. It really is a waste of time for me. The fact that these incidents happened so recently- with many young women who he just knew for a few weeks- no shirtless pic's- but the Full Monty. I mean it just seems like it would be best for everybody if he took some other job for now- restore his marriage and maybe some day he can come back and be productive. Elliot Spitzer actually is doing a great job at CNN- as an analyst he is really good- very fair.

Instead of trying to explain the foibles of ‘the left’ by coming up with arguments that say ‘we function at such a higher level than the rest of the country’ just swallow the crow and take some time off- please- the country really needs a break.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

[1669] WAR

Let's talk about war. These past few days NATO has bombed Tripoli really hard. Reporters on the ground have said that the compound that Gadhaffi lives in has been leveled- to the point where it makes no sense- sort of like turning the place into a post nuclear looking wasteland.

Supposedly we [Brits, French and U.S.] were trying to penetrate any hidden bunkers, using the famous Bunker Busting bombs. It seems so surreal- when was the last time you saw/heard daily reports of the British and French doing routine air raids?

I can’t think of the last time- it must have been WW2. You say ‘now brother- I know the British were brave under Churchill- but the French?’ Okay- as least they were industrious- do you know how many white flags that country produced during the war? [To my French readers- I’m sorry]

So we have chosen to bomb- Libya had an ambassador go to the Hague and to the French this week, they filed war crimes charges against them. This past week the former Serbian general who was on the run for years- Slobodan Milosevic- was finally captured and taken to the ‘world court’ on charges of genocide.

You remember that back during the Clinton years we got involved because the Serbian Christians were fighting the Muslims and the charges were that the Serbs were carrying out genocide against the Muslims.

Why did we engage there? It’s possible that tens of thousands died- do you know how many Blacks died on the continent of Africa? Many of them Christians- killed by Muslims? Sudan, Darfur, Congo? Some say the numbers are over a million. Do you know how many Iraqi’s died since our invasion? Some estimates say around a million civilians have died since the war started.

The U.S. does not keep records of civilian deaths. So why Serbia and not Africa? Do you remember who the secretary of state was at the time? Madeline Albright. She came from this part of the world- she actually made statements saying she would not sit back and see ‘her’ people killed like this.

Problem? Did we allow the ethnic roots of a secretary of state dictate where and when we would get involved? Jesse Jackson brought this up at the time- he asked ‘why intervene when it’s your homeland- and let millions die when it’s in Africa’? Hate to admit it- but the man was right.

Now Libya. There are reports coming out that the western backed rebels [the guys we are backing] have tortured and killed Blacks. Why? Do you remember when Nelson Mandela was released from prison- he went to Libya and personally thanked Gadhaffi for his support- called him his brother. Many in the west cringed at the time.

Why did he do this? In Africa you have Black Africans and non Blacks. Some hate the Black skinned Africans and have been pro slavery. Others have a long history of supporting the Black skinned Africans- Gadhaffi is one of those who have been on the side of the Blacks for many years.

Right now in Libya you have many Blacks who have come from the Sub Sahara and these are fighting on the side of Gadhaffi. The western media reports this- but they always say these Blacks are just hired guns. While this is partially true- yet when these fighters are asked ‘why are you helping Gadhaffi’ they will tell you- just like Mandela- that he has supported them for decades- when no one else cared- including us.

There is an ex Black congresswoman in Libya right now- she has reported that the rebels have been lynching the Blacks- just having Black skin identifies you as being on Gadhaffi’s side- No wonder Farrakhan said ‘who the hell are you [Obama] telling him he must go!’.

Many Blacks see Gadhaffi as one of their own- he has earned their support. Now do you see why so many Blacks can’t understand why America’s first Black president might be the one to topple the man- and at the same time supporting the rebels- you know- the lynchers!

What a tangled web we weave. I do not know what position we should take in all these wars and uprisings- but we need to be very slow at pulling the trigger and getting comfortable with seeing our country daily bombing another country.

The congress just tried to pass something that would have forced us to leave Libya in 15 days. The 60 day mark has passed [the deadline for the president going to the congress for support] and the president has yet to go to the congress. Instead congress passed something that demanded the president give some more answers on why we are bombing Libya- non stop.

It seems to me that the so called ‘no fly zone’ has been implemented- obviously we want to kill the man. Problem? We have no right to kill the guy- no matter what the Arab league- the U.N. - Nato- no matter what they agree on- the U.S. is not allowed to assassinate foreign heads of state- and that’s that.

So today we got a lesson on why we sometimes intervene- and sometimes not. Why we let millions of Africans die on the continent- and intervene for thousands in Serbia. Yes- we are a fickle crowd. And all this at the expense of our young men and women.

I heard Beck one day- he had a guest on. The guest quoted the words of Lincoln ‘a nation divided against itself can not stand’. Beck was quick to correct the man- Beck told him that Lincoln did not coin this phrase- but he got it from another politico who lived before him. Beck then mentioned the ‘originator’ it was some guy who lived a few hundred years before Lincoln.

To my surprise both of these men got it wrong. The words come from the lips of Jesus in the New Testament. Yes Jesus himself said it.

As I look at the political landscape today- upcoming elections where its popular to be ‘pro war’- I hope we as a people can be honest about the things we are doing- be willing to ‘cut and run’ when we realize that the political end game might not be much better then before we went in [Iraq and Afghanistan] and return to the original purpose of our fighting men and women- to protect the homeland.

As much as I want freedom for the Iraqi’s- to see the Afghan women freed from oppressive regimes like the Taliban- as good and right as these things are [or to prevent a ‘genocide’ in Libya] as good as these things are- our men and women did not join the military for this- that’s not a reason for them to die. We need to think long and hard before we spill the blood of our kids on foreign soil- we do not want them to die in vain.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011


These last few weeks I have been reading a few key passages from the book of Daniel. I have found lots of practical stuff that you can apply to ministry and the journey we all take in life. Daniel was stuck in Babylon- he was seeking God- praying about his situation and the people he had responsibility for.

The book says he understood from the beginning what God’s purpose was- both for him and the people he would eventually influence- yet the men who were with him- the helpers- they did not have the same insight that he had. The bible says these men ‘hid in fear’.

Daniel also knew that the appointed time was long- that the things he was waiting for would take a lifetime to see. Daniel saw that the walls and temple would be rebuilt in 'troublous times’. That even though he was commanded to pray and intercede for the people- yet there would be much difficulty involved- he would have to persevere much. He prays ‘God- do these things- help your people- not because of my righteousness- but because of your mercy’.

You can read about the actual rebuilding of the city and temple in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.

This past week we have had some important news, lots of stuff that meant something. The economic numbers were disastrous. The Middle East situation grew worse. The president of Afghanistan said ‘no more bombing of civilian homes’ NATO killed 12 civilians- all women and children- can you blame the man?

And of course we were all treated to the daily voyeuristic fix of seeing Weiner’s pics slowly trickle out- day after day.

Truly the wall is being built- but we are also in very troublous times. I must admit that the media has scored very low on the scale of responsible journalism. I do credit Brian Williams [NBC] for not even covering the Weiner story- he was right in the fact that it was not a slow news week- and it was hard to justify the coverage that the story got.

At the same time- their cable branch- MSNBC- was shameful. They not only reported as news the fake alibi of Weiner [Brietbart did it!] but they spent the whole week as shameful political hacks.

Last night Lawrence O’Donnell actually covered the admission of the congressman and concluded ‘the only victim [ONLY!] was Weiner’s wife’. Now- the congressman just admitted that he sent many pictures of himself to many women- he could not rule out whether some of them were minors- whether they were unsolicited- yet O’Donnell does not see these women as 'victims’ to the contrary- some of the ‘liberal’ media began hinting at the possibility that these women might be in cahoots with Brietbart- yeah- way to go- blame the women.

I have come to the conclusion that MSNBC is a vast waste of airtime. O’Donnell said he could still see Weiner as the mayor of Gotham City- and he would invite him on the show and not ask a single question about the scandal. This from the network that as recently as a few days ago was headlining their news with the shirtless pic of the Republican congressman who has been gone for months.

So the world is in turmoil- Yemen’s president was hurt badly when the protestors bombed the presidential palace. He was flown to Saudi Arabia and he might not make it back. Yemen is a very dangerous country- Al Qaeda is strong there- and they might actually take over the country.

Syria has decided to cross their border with Israel [The Golan Heights]. And Israel killed 20 protestors/invaders- Assad [Syria’s leader] is obviously taking the strategy of starting something with Israel to get the heat off of his murderous regime.

Yes- troublous times indeed.

You know- right about now I know how Paul Revere must have felt- jumping on his horse- riding his famous ride- ringing those bells and proclaiming ‘hey you Brits- you better not try and take our guns’ yeah- I know the feeling for sure.