Happy Independence Day Weekend!

Hope everyone enjoys a safe and happy Independence Day weekend! Mine didn't start out very well. My blog was hacked into on Friday. I think that I made a grave editing error and my dashboard was exposed for a few minutes. When I realized the mistake, I immediately erased what was causing the problem. Shortly after that, I could no longer log into my dashboard. I tried to get into my blog dashboard several times over the next few hours, but to no avail. I finally closed my browser and shut off the computer for the night, hoping that perhaps the problem would get fixed overnight by blogger.

This is basically what happened. After utilizing the "preview" button to look at my new post (Exposing A Loony Leftist Lie,) it just suddenly disappeared from the edit/compose box! I then received a message that I had never seen before. It said something like, "Post not saved. Could possibly have been deleted by another person editing the post." Those were not the exact words, but that was basically what the message was telling me. I got nervous. I thought that perhaps someone now had complete access to my dashboard.

Several choices entered into my mind. I thought about deleting this blog and starting over. I also thought about creating a new blog within a provider other than Blogger. I have noticed several of the major blogs that I have in my sidebar have done that. Perhaps they wanted to get away from Google/Blogger too.

My next thought was that I would loose over five years of blog posts if I just went ahead and deleted this blog! That would be a lot of work gone down the drain, so the option of deleting this blog was no longer on the table. Fortunately, the next morning, I was able to log onto my blog dashboard and everything seemed O.K.

Anyway, I would like to thank the readers who frequent here and the many guests who come by this blog via search engines. I hope that what you searched for, and read here at Talk Wisdom helped you.

As I walked my dogs this morning, I noticed that many of my neighbors have flags displayed outside their homes. Some have flag poles and display the flag every day. My husband recently put up a large flag near a window outside our home. We have always had a small one on a stick positioned upon our "Welcome" sign on our front door. 

It makes me happy to see the symbol of our nation and the freedom that it represents displayed by so many neighbors! I think that in these difficult times, with the kind of gangster government that our nation is suffering from, displaying the proud symbol of our patriotism towards our beloved country is even more important than ever. There are people who live in this nation who obviously show their hatred for our flag and what it stands for. They adhere to philosophies and a type of government that is foreign to most Americans. But the freedoms and liberty that the flag represents allows such people to trample on the very symbol that we love; but they, unfortunately, hate. Ironic, isn't it? I also think that it is very very sad.

I recently saw a movie called, "The Majestic." Jim Carrey starred in the movie along with Martin Landau and Amanda Detmer. I really liked the movie all the way up until the end. I guess you could say that I felt the same way one commenter at the link did when he wrote:

"I first hated this film when I saw it. I think my opinion's softened on it over time, but I will always hate it for the fact that it trivializes the HUAC trials and the seriousness of the anti-commie hysteria of the 1950s." - bxc85

I sincerely think that the ending of the movie was, in a not-so-subtle way, an attempt to re-write history. It did not project, as "bxc85" stated above, the seriousness of the anti-communist sentiment of the 1950's.

Just think about how people felt about radical Islam just after that tragic and horrific day on 9/11/01. Would people who lived through that change their minds about the threat of jihadist terrorism over the course of history? Would a little town of patriotic military families end up cheering a victorious sounding speech in a congressional hearing if the person speaking the words was a pro-radical Islam supporter? I don't think so!!

It is so typical of liberal leftists to gloss over any person or group who is, has become, or always has been radical and dangerous to our way of life. What more can I say about this?

I also think that it is a terrible thing to realize that this movie was made in the same year that the terrorism attack on our nation occurred. Perhaps it was made and released before that tragic day, but I also think that it was inappropriate considering how dangerous communism and nazism was in the 1950's. I can't help but wonder what my father would have thought of the movie. He fought in WWII, and could not bring himself to discuss the horrors of that war. To trivialize communist sentiment during a Congressional hearing should be anathema to any truly thinking person.

I was brought up to believe that communism was very bad. Why? Because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED! President Ronald Reagan cemented that belief with how often he discussed the need to defeat it. Since he worked in both Hollywood and in both state (California) and federal government, he was very familiar and aware of the communist threat back then. What would he have thought about the ending of that movie?

It was a strange experience to view a film that I liked at first, but then found very disturbing at the end.

For those of you who have seen the movie, any thoughts or comments?

In conclusion, have a Happy Fourth of July holiday!

~ Christine

Like Father Like Son

While reading Citizen Wells blog, I found an excellent, truthful, America-saving essay and petition for We The People Americans who are FED UP with the ObaMARXIST's America-destroying agenda and want to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! I have copied the essay here and urge each patriot who stands for freedom, liberty, our Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the rule of law, and the great AMERICAN nation that our Founding Fathers envisioned and created for us, to sign the petition at the provided link.

Please share this information with everyone you know!

God save the United States of America!

In Christ,

Christine

*******

“Like Father Like Son”

By: Veterans For A Strong America.

Veterans 4 A Strong America

V4A Freedom Paper 2
V4A


The Measure of the Citizen is

The Measure of The Nation




“Dear Mr. Obama,

It is a fact, indisputable to honest minds, that there is virtually no aspect of your origins, personal or ideological, that are not somehow wrapped in fraud. The multiplicity of your actions which seem to defy all reason and all comprehension, however, are easily deciphered and understood in light of your real ideological father—Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals.” Alinsky is your true origin in ideology and political methodology. Alinsky is your father and it is this father, Saul Alinsky, whose dreams you seek to fulfill every day of your life.

And how better can we understand and interpret Alinsky, than by noting that Alinsky literally dedicated his own book to Lucifer, also known as Satan.

Let us hear Alinsky’s own words of dedication and I quote: “(to) the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.” Mr. Obama, if Lucifer was Alinsky’s ideological father, then you are Lucifer’s ideological grandson.

Leave it to Lucifer to seek to fundamentally transform Heaven, a place of absolute perfection; leave it to Alinsky to refer to Heaven as “The Establishment.” It is Alinsky who preached to generations of admiring radical protégés and I quote: “There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” This quotation of Alinsky’s is not something taken out of context; it is the focal-point of his work and the end point to which his reasoning process leads.

Mr. Obama, you spent years teaching workshops on ‘the Alinsky method’; you raised money to fund the Alinsky Academy, while working with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayres.

Alinsky’s own biological son has publicly reveled in your success, saying and I quote: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

Mr. Obama, from this time forward, we will view you through the Alinsky Looking Glass and interpret your actions with a spirit of utter distrust—irreparable distrust which you have more than earned, by your actions while holding the office of President.

Alinsky is all about being The Trojan Horse and are you not, Mr. Obama, the greatest Trojan Horse in all of American history? Alinsky himself believed that ‘true revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.’ Alinsky also espoused another related maxim: “Wherever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.”

As you well know, this means: adopt a strategy that is something the enemy has never seen before and, therefore, cannot properly interpret, until it’s too late for the enemy to be able to mount an effective resistance and save himself. A perfect example of this principle in action is the new mission you have given the head of NASA.

You want NASA to make outreach to Muslim countries NASA’s #1 priority. This idea is so far out in left field that it defies comprehension—but, then again, you knew your NASA mission would have this effect on us, didn’t you?

We can’t see your dark purposes, because your actions go so far outside the experience of The American People. If we view this travesty through the Alinsky Looking Glass, however, here is what we see: Mr. Obama talking, in glowingly eloquent terms, about space programs no longer being “competitive” but
“collaborative.”

But this is just another, Alynsky-inspired sleight of hand and a classic bit of theatrical misdirection, isn’t it? When we look below the surface, however, what do we see?

We see the strongest protests against your policy from none other than the former head of NASA. You and the current head of NASA are talking about the importance of ‘helping countries establish space programs’ and you pointed to Indonesia, where you spent your formative years, as a possible partner.

How can this partnering with Muslim countries be done, without sharing NASA technology with these nations?

Mr. Obama, by these actions, you know all-too-well that you are putting technology into the hands of the very people who would use it in the creation of ballistic missiles that could reach any city in the United States.

Can any reasonable person deny that there would be a direct pipeline for this technology from any moderate Muslim nation “partnering with NASA” to a terrorist entity or a nation like Iran?

You can calmly deny your treasonous motives all you want—that’s the deceit & guile of your Alinsky methodology: denial after denial uttered in your calm, well-modulated voice. The only people in the room who are ever in the wrong are, of course, those who are expressing their anger openly—especially if it is anger directed toward you.

Once this NASA technology is in the hands of terrorists, the situation is irreversible—and that is exactly what you want!

Because you pursue a course of action that risks NASA technology finding its way into the hands of terrorists, you are therefore a confirmed traitor of the highest order and we demand that our Senators and Congressmen immediately put a stop to this unfolding travesty and call for your immediate impeachment.

Mr. Obama, you are most prolific. We see Alinsky’s signature methodology permeating Elena Kagan’s unyielding refusal to admit to contradictions in her words and actions.

Kagan embodies the artful dodger of Alinsky methodology. We rightly admire Senator Sessions’ dignified & forthright approach in the confirmation hearings. However, he is perhaps too much of a Southern gentleman to get as mean & aggressive as he needs to get, in order to defend America effectively against the likes of Elena Kagan.

Everything within us abhors the Republican leaderships’ simpering acquiescence to the momentum of this fraudulent confirmation process; theirs is an unforgivable lack of courage witnessed by their unwillingness to take bold action and to resist at all costs the ascension to our Supreme Court by a fraud such as Kagan—nor do they even show the fortitude required to mount a filibuster against this enemy of our Freedoms.

It is Kagan who argued to the Supreme Court that political speech can and should be regulated by the federal government, up to and including censorship of books.

It is Kagan who, as Dean of Harvard Law School, established Shariah law’s most powerful and prestigious beachhead in American academia to date: the Harvard “Islamic Finance Project’—directly financed by Saudi prince Alaweed Bin Talal, a member of The Muslim Brotherhood—the oldest Islamic terrorist organization in the world. The purpose of this project is to train American lawyers to practice Shariah-Compliant Law in The United States of America.

Have We-the-People heard even one question directed at this woman regarding her dedicated & concerted efforts to lend institutional respectability to repressive & unconstitutional Shariah law? We have not.

Remember: It is Kagan whose impassioned argument, before the Supreme Court, urged that American corporations should be permitted, under the guise of the 1st Amendment, to provide material aid to terrorist organizations and do so with utter impunity.

Finally, if confirmed, it will be Kagan who casts her vote on cases brought to the Supreme Court that will determine if Conservative Talk Radio survives The Fairness Doctrine or not; it will be Kagan who will hear cases as to whether Shariah law should be allowed in the United States as a “legal-system-within-a-legal-system”; it will be Kagan who will draw deeply from the well of radical Alinsky politics, her penchant for intellectual dishonesty and her ignorance of—and disdain for—“The Doctrine of Original Intent”—that the Constitution means precisely what the Founders intended it to mean. Given all the foregoing, is it not time to set a precedent in the Elena Kagan vetting process?

No Supreme Court nominee has ever before sunk so low as to be brought up on charges of perjury, during a Confirmation process. Furthermore, every single one of Elena Kagan’s statements are made under oath. Where an oath is administered, perjury charges may be brought.

In light of Kagan’s apparent utter disregard for the Truth and the abundant documentary evidence that proves this, what could be more appropriate than that a courageous Senator bring charges of perjury against her?

Therefore, we citizens of America demand that our leaders bring Elena Kagan up on charges of perjury, without further delay! Has Senator Sessions not said, repeatedly, that Kagan’s testimony under oath absolutely contradicts the facts that are key to examining her for confirmation? Has Kagan not lied—and does she not continue to lie—under oath, by denying material facts that would disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court, if she had answered truthfully & directly the point of each question?

No amount of “qualifiers” added to an answer make that answer truthful, when the net-net is that Kagan’s answer is “yes” when the facts say “no” and “no” when the facts say “yes.” A half truth is a whole lie. Kagan speaks anything but “The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth”—which is just as Saul Alinsky would have it.

Mr. Obama, we don’t know why you hate America but, then again, we don’t know why Lucifer hated Heaven either. We stand irreconcilably opposed to you and your plans to destroy America.

The actions you are now taking will inevitably bring this about, if you are not stopped. We will act boldly, as law-abiding citizens, to do whatever it takes to save this Free Republic, to stop and decisively defeat you & your accomplices and, thereby, restore our country’s security and Freedom.”

From: Veterans 4 A Strong America

“Like Father Like Son”

By: Veterans For A Strong America.

Veterans 4 A Strong America

By: Veterans for a Strong America. The Freedom Papers™, Issue #3: “Like Father Like Son.”

# # # #

Please go to the above link and sign this “Freedom Paper #3″ and Send It To Congress Through Fax, Email & Registered Mail!!

All Americans Are Asked To Sign This “Freedom Paper # 3″ And Send This To Congress Members Immediately to DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL & IMPEACHMENT Of the Daily Serial Criminal Barack Obama for Committing Daily High Crimes & Treasons In The USA Against ALL Americans, And TO DEMAND CONGRESS MUST VOTE NO & 100% REJECT THE NOMINATION OF THE 100% UNQUALIFIED PRO-COMMUNIST/MARXIST, PRO-NAZI SUPPORTER, PRO-SHARIA LAW, PRO-INTERNATIONAL LAW & PRO-U.N. LAW, ANTI-USA CONSTITUTION – ANTI-RULE OF LAW IN THE USA, ANTI-USA
SOVEREIGNTY, ANTI-AMERICAN, 100% Extremely Horrifically Unqualified Nominee Elena Kagan; & TO DEMAND CONGRESS Start Perjury Charges On Elena Kagan For Lying Under Oath During The Congressional Confirmation Interviews & Hearings.

From: Veterans 4 A Strong America

“Like Father Like Son”

By: Veterans For A Strong America.

http://www.v4asa.org/paper3.html

We can STOP The Radical Communist/
Marxist Anti-American, Pro-Sharia Law, Pro-International & U.N. Law, Anti-USA Sovereignty, Anti-USA Constitution, Pro-Abortions, Pro-Euthanasia, Pro-Homosexuality, Pro-Same-Sex Marriage,
Extremely Dangerous To ALL Americans & 100% Immoral & 100% Corrupt Elena Kagan’s Confirmation!!

WE THE PEOPLE ALSO DEMAND CONGRESS TO IMMEDIATELY IMPEACH & REMOVE BARACK OBAMA FOR COMMITTING HIS DAILY HIGH CRIMES & HIGH TREASONS AGAINST ALL 400 + MILLION AMERICANS HERE:

http://www.v4asa.org/paper3.html

By: Veterans For A Strong America.

Please Americans Get Into Daily Action To Save The USA!! Go To The Above Link Now!!

Please Share This & Spread This Article & Work With All Americans Far & Wide!!

Also see Veterans 4 A Strong America Home Page

Hat Tips:

Veterans 4 A Strong America

Citizen Wells blog (and commentator Starla)

Freedom Is Not Free

Before I get to the explanation of the topic "Freedom Is Not Free," I want to share a personal story that led me to think about, and write about that phrase.

From February 6th through the 17th, I was in the midst of the Blizzard of 2010. Yes. This California gal was visiting her mom back east. I ended up being smack dab in the middle of several snow storms that wreaked havoc on the east coast.

It has been several years since I have shoveled snow. Well, over the course of several days, I ended up shoveling snow five times! I hate when the snow plow comes along and drops those large chunks of icy snow right in front of the driveway!

Anyway, I had a great visit with my mom. She is very frail now. Each year when I go back for 10 days to stay with her, it ends up being such a sweet time.

Fortunately, we were able to get out of the house before one snow storm, and then again in between the second and third one.

I discovered that the mall a few miles from her home offers free rental of wheelchairs. This enabled us to spend several hours at the mall without her tiring too easily. My mom can still walk, but she gets pain in one leg if she walks long distances.

Since her birthday was coming up in April, I asked her to shop for her own gift. I thought that when we reached the clothing racks, she would get up and look around. Nope! She enjoyed looking at the clothes sitting in the wheelchair, while directing me to push her all around the Macy's women's department.

A beautiful pants suit caught her eye. The jacket was lime green with black piping around the collar. The pants were black. The sales lady was kind enough to pick out some shell tops for her to try on under the jacket. She looked beautiful in it!! I was so excited to buy it for her. The pants needed hemming, but other than that it was a great fit!

We enjoyed lunch at the Nordstrom Cafe. We had soup and salad, and split a delicious frosted carrot cake. I loved that cake so much, I asked the lady at the register if I could purchase a whole cake to take home. She told me she could order it and it would be $40.00. Forty dollars? Must be one of those fancy bakery-type cakes! Still, I should have bought one more piece to take home!

One Saturday evening, I invited my Aunt Alex to join us for dinner at one of our favorite Italian restaurants. We got there very early (4:30 p.m.), before the crowd would get there.

My Aunt Alex is the older sister of my mom. She is sharp as a whip, funny, active, still drives and still bowls once a week! She might not like me to share her age, so I won't. She is a great person and I love her so much!

Aunt Alex is a senior leader of the Lady's Auxiliary in her town. They hold annual spaghetti dinners to benefit war vets who are recovering from their injuries and/or need prosthetic limbs. During the event, people buy raffle tickets to win prizes. Many of the prizes are small blankets from USA Cares - the same organization that comedian Dennis Miller (often seen on The O'Reilly Factor show segments) promotes. My mom has won several of these blankets from past fund raisers. She had one at home that read: "Freedom Is Not Free." I asked her if I could have it. She said yes. It was nice to have that little blanket in my carry-on bag so that I could rest my head against it during the long plane flight home. More about that saying in a moment.

One of the funniest moments at the restaurant was when I told both of them that this dinner is my treat. My Aunt Alex was hesitant to order the scallops dinner that she wanted because it was so expensive (wasn't really - only $17.00). I told her, "Go ahead and order it! My husband gave me lots of spending money for this trip! I'm getting the crab-stuffed shrimp ($18.00)." Next, it was time to see what my mom wanted. She said, "Spaghetti and meatballs." Now, my aunt rolled her eyes. She said, "we both have freezers full of leftover spaghetti and meatballs! Don't you dare order that!" We both spent the next 15 minutes trying to get my mom to order something different. To no avail. Finally, my aunt said (kiddingly, of course), "Helen, if you order spaghetti and meatballs I'm gonna kill you!" I laughed so hard!! Meanwhile, the original waiter gave up on us and a new waitress came over to get our orders. We must have been sitting there laughing and talking for half an hour!

Our meals were delicious! My mom was stubborn and went ahead and ordered her spaghetti and meatballs. Aunt Alex did the familiar family hand wave of disgust. What a riot!

When we dropped off Aunt Alex at home, she gave her sister a kiss and said, "Love you!" I chuckled to myself. A few hours ago she was humorously irritated with her sister.

Unfortunately, my mom ended up with a bit of heartburn from the meal. I saw her pop two tums chewables when we got home. She shoulda listened to us!

If you have been patient enough to read through the personal account above, thank you! I am now leading up to discussing the title of this post.

The saying, "Freedom Is Not Free" is very true. We all know how our brave military has been instrumental in keeping America free and protecting our homeland throughout our history. We know how they helped the cause of freedom around the world in World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the war in Afghanistan; just to name a few.

Former President Reagan said this classic quote:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

Did you read that? "It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same..."

Freedom Is Not Free.

I have recently become a member of The Heritage Foundation. I have donated to that worthy cause several times. I will do so again, especially after reading the latest awesome letter that I received from Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D. - President of the foundation.

My next post will share the details of that letter [See Some Conservative Intellectual Wisdom]

For now, I want to talk about the fact that the saying "Freedom Is Not Free" can also be applied to the freedom that is offered to us through the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Christian faith is based on the Cross of Christ. The Gospel message is one that informs us (via the Bible) that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, so that we could be free from the punishment of eternal death.

Again, Freedom Is Not Free. Someone had to pay the price. Jesus Christ paid the price on that cross at Calvary, over 2,000 years ago.

Non-believers often scoff at this idea. They take on the attitude that one Man, could not possibly have done what Christ claimed to do. One Man, could not possibly achieve what Christ claimed to achieve. To them, it's all "rubbish," "lies," "myth," "an impossibility" due to what we know about science...and the list could go on and on. Unfortunately, the physical world is all that they believe in. They say, "show me - then I will believe." Christian faith says, "Believe, then you will see." It's a spiritual thing that cannot be measured by science, man's wisdom, man's knowledge, man's personality, or man's thoughts.

In the Old Testament, God tells us through Isaiah:

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

So, the question becomes, how do we find out God's thoughts? This side of heaven, we cannot find out all of them. However, God has given us the Bible - His written Word, and Jesus Christ - His Living Word to inform us of what we need to know during our brief life on this earth in order to be reconciled back to God and spend eternity in heaven with Him.

The scoffers often try and point out errors and flaws in Scripture. They relish finding verses and quoting them out of context to support their own personal views.

Here's an example.

Over at my Talk Wisdom forum, GMPilot (a self-described non-believer in Christ) wrote this in the Che: The Evil Murderer thread:

I'd really like to know...if Guevara was an "evil murderer", who is a good murderer?

Apparently, GMPilot objected to my labeling of Che as an "evil" murderer.

My reply:

The point of this post was to show how people often follow a kind of "groupthink" about past revolutionaries - good, bad, or downright evil - without knowing the history of the person. How else could it be explained that so many young people who worked in the Obama campaign of 2008 allowed posters of Che to be up in the election headquarters? Why would they wear t-shirts and why would a model wear underwear with Che's face all over it?

It's either ignorance or complicity. Take your pick.

Then GM wrote:

Quote:
Christine: The point of this post was to show how people often follow a kind of "groupthink" about past revolutionaries - good, bad, or downright evil - without knowing the history of the person.

I could say the same about those so-called "TEA party-ers" who carry quotes from certain of the Founders without fully understanding their meaning. Or those who equate socialism with fascism, ignorant of the fact that the two systems are incompatible with each other, let alone with what we've got.
IMHO, true patriots never proclaim themselves as such; they don't need to.

Quote:
Christine: How else could it be explained that so many young people who worked in the Obama campaign of 2008 allowed posters of Che to be up in the election headquarters?

How many election headquarters? Which one(s)? Where? All I hear is rhetoric, not facts.

Quote:
Christine: Why would they wear t-shirts and why would a model wear underwear with Che's face all over it?

If you don't know why people wear t-shirts, it's too late to explain anything to you. If I were a model, I'd wear underwear with Che's face on it; I know all about Che Guevara, and he can kiss my ass. Literally. On my skivvies.

Quote:
Christine: It's either ignorance or complicity. Take your pick.

I pick ignorance; ignorance can be cured. Obviously there's a lot of it out there, if Beck feels he must educate his audience about Che!

I repeat...if Guevara was an "evil murderer", who is a good murderer?

Perhaps this guy?

My second reply:

Abortion advocates and abortionists?

Quote:
GM: I'd really like to know...if Guevara was an "evil murderer", who is a good murderer?

In the view of liberal leftists who do all that they can to protect abortion "rights," perhaps you could call them advocates for "good" murder and the abortionists "good" murderers? Of course, they are only "good" in their own minds...

Woe to those who would call evil "good" and good, "evil."
__________________
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

GM wrote:

Re: Post #9479


Don't go dumping the definitions on me, hostess. You determined that Che was an "evil murderer', so I assumed you knew what a "good" one was. I offered you a couple of possibilities, and you wouldn't commit to either one.
If you find you can't answer that question, maybe you should retract that adjective and just settle for "murderer".

Quote:
Woe to those who would call evil "good" and good, "evil."

Murder isn't "evil" if He commands it, though. Ever notice that?
__________________
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth." --H L Mencken

"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes." --"Ghostbusters"

I included our tag lines in the last two comments because I thought they were so fitting to the differences in our spiritual beliefs.

Notice that GMPilot did not address the issue of abortion as being considered as "good murder" - which pro-abortion advocates must obviously think. Otherwise, abortion would be unthinkable to them, would it not?

I have not yet responded to GM's last comment. I find it strange that he now claims to object to my use of the adjective "evil" to describe a person who was a murderer. And, GM objects to the fact that God has the power over life and death. He seems to think that is evil.

My question. Who but the Creator of the Universe should have the ultimate power over life and death?

Taking Scripture out of context is a sport with many atheists/skeptics/Christian haters. The fact that many of these kinds of people hate the God of the Bible is quite evident, too.

The fact that Scripture upholds the death penalty bothers them, as well. But what would they want? Freedom for murderers to get away with their crimes? Life in prison without the possibility of parole?

The admonition, "Thou shalt not murder" in the Ten Commandments does not mean that the act of killing (for self-defense, in war, in protecting family etc.) is never justified. That is a misconception by some who can't understand why there is a death penalty in the first place.

[Note: Please see the essay at the end of this post for Greg Koukl's excellent article: What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion. It includes some facts about why the death penalty in the Old Testament is considered biblical.]

Physical death is the penalty for sin that every human being must go through. However, without the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross - the idea that sinners can be set free from spiritual death without confessing and recognizing that Christ paid the penalty for their sin - would not be justice.

Thus, we come full circle on the idea that "Freedom Is Not Free." Of course, this is not an exhaustive essay on the topic. Much more can be written and said about it. But I hope that this brief explanation will get readers thinking about why that phrase is so true.

It also explains why many Americans today are protesting this out-of-control government takeover that we are experiencing today at an alarming rate.

Our Charters of Freedom are on the line. When our United States Constitution is ignored by government leaders, and a presidency can be usurped due to cover-up, we can see the inherent danger that we face in losing our freedoms; as well as our way of life via what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our Constitutional Republic.

Recall what Benjamin Franklin once said to a woman who asked the question, "what type of government have you given us, sir? He replied, "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it."

What are you willing to do to keep our Constitutional Republic here in the United States of America intact?

If you want to find out what you can do, go to ResistNet.com

You can have most of your questions about the forum answered here.

*******

Copy of Greg Koukl's essay:

What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion



Gregory Koukl

The Torah's teaching about accidental "miscarriage"; has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.


Most attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. In the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in the Scripture, Christian pro-lifers quote equivocal passages.

Some citations use personal pronouns to describe the unborn, but many of these are in poetry texts, so the conclusion is not entirely convincing. God’s personal acquaintance with the unborn can be explained by His omniscience. After all, some texts make it clear that God “knows” us even before we’re conceived.

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I’ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I’m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.


Dead or Alive?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders Exodus 21:22-25 this way:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[1]
This translation suggests that if a miscarriage takes place and the child is lost, the antagonists are simply fined, but if the mother dies in the scuffle, then the penalty is “life for life.” In the Torah, it seems, the unborn is not considered fully human.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, “the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.”[2]

At issue is the phrase translated “she has a miscarriage.” There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word “miscarriage” implies the death of the child. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, “The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.”[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage” is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. There’s a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Let’s look at it.


Yeled and Yasa

A word’s meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word’s range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, “...she has a miscarriage...,” reads w˚yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means “the child comes forth.” The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated “child” in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.”[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.” In the NASB yalad is translated “childbirth” 10 times, some form of “gave birth” over 50 times, and either “bore,” “born,” or “borne” 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means “to go or come out.” It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It’s translated with some form of “coming out” (e.g., “comes out,” “came out,” etc.) 103 times, and some form of “going” 445 times.

What’s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:

Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”
Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....”

Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....”

Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob.”

1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

As you can see, it’s common for yasa to describe the “coming forth” of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (“whose flesh is half eaten away”), and doesn’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?


Clues from the Context

This inductive analysis shows us something important: Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.

This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth” is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.

This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way (the word “further” in the NASB is not in the original):

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....”
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”[9]

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

“There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...”[10]
Two Rejoinders

Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma.

Anyway, even if the fine was for the miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the child was less than human. A few verses later (v. 32), Moses imposes a fine for the death of a slave, but this doesn’t mean the slave is sub-human.

Second, was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that’s what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel[11] means “miscarriage” or “abortion,” and is used three times:

Job 3:16 “Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light.”
Eccl. 6:3-4 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, ‘Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.’”

Psalms 58:8 “Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.”

The verb sakal[12] means “to be bereaved” and is used four times, including one time when it’s actually translated “abort:”

Genesis 31:38 “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, nor have I eaten the rams of your flocks.”
Exodus 23:26 “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.”

Hosea 9:14 “Give them, O Lord-- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”

Job 21:10 “His ox mates without fail; his cow calves and does not abort.

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.” Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.


Three Questions

When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The 1995 updated version of the NASB now renders this verse, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined...” etc.
[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

[3] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1984).

[4] Strong’s Index word #3206.

[5] Definitions come from the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance. For further documentation, see the Hebrew/English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard lexicon of ancient Hebrew.

[6] Strong’s Index word #3205.

[7] Strong’s Index word #3318.

[8] The New International Version is correct in rendering this passage, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.”

[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 556.

[10] Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

[11] Strong’s Index word #5309.

[12] Strong’s Index word #7921.

[13] Again, in the Numbers passage the context indicates the death, not the word yasa itself.





This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2002 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org








Hat Tips:

The Quotations Page

Stand To Reason

Article Roundup

Perhaps one of the best essays having to do with the stark contrast between a pro-life mindset and the pro-death to unborn babies evil mindset:

Jill Stanek: Obama's polar opposite lost Peace Prize.

Yes people. In the crazy upside down world of ObamaFRAUD land, we have the phenomenon of evil is good, and good is unimaginably labeled as "evil," ignored and/or inexplicably ridiculed by lunatic leaders in our nation's Capital.

We have corruption and intimidation, MOB RULE and travesty of justice all around us!

How much will America be able to stand before we ALL realize that our freedoms are being methodically taken away, one by one, by the gangster government thugs in the White House - led by the evil puppeteer George Soros? And how about that clueless Congress which chose to ignore the 1.2 million people protesting against ObamaSCARE HELLcare at the Capital on September 12th and went ahead and passed the horrible Baucus bill in the Senate committee yesterday?

Chuck Baldwin writes, These Are Not Negotiable

Excerpt:

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies."

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured "patient sufferance." For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother's permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering "a long train of abuses and usurpations." In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing--no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred--that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Continue reading here

We are currently in the fight for the very survival of our FREEDOMS and our Constitutional Republic! People are waking up, but as for the left in this country - not soon enough!!

Hat Tips:

World Net Daily

Chuck Baldwin Live

The Salt Lake Tribune

American Thinker

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT II

Does This Show America Today?

This particular day turned out to be quite busy for me. I didn't get the chance to put up a new post. However, as I checked my email messages tonight, Sosthenes sent me a very poignant quote which reveals why America is going through so much turmoil; and why we are on the verge of losing our freedoms.

The Library of Congress attributes the following to Professor Alexander Tyler, writing about democracy in the ancient Athenian pattern. It's amazingly relevant. [And I find it even more relevant today].

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury.... with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith--- from spiritual faith to great courage--- from courage to liberty---from liberty to abundance---from abundance to selfishness---from selfishness to complacency---from complacency to apathy--- from apathy to dependence--- from dependence back into bondage."

Two questions:

Does this show America today?

What sequence of the cycle do you see us in today?

Recall that Franklin quote when he was asked what type of government has been given to the United States of America:

"We have given you a Republic - if you can keep it."

What do you say, Fellow Patriots? Are we going to keep our Republic?

Hat Tip:

Sosthenes via email

Sarah Palin Career Change!

I recently discovered a blog called Voting Female Speaks: Sarah Palin Career Change; Sets Sights on National Level Politics; Will not seek new term as Governor of Alaska and the coverage, comments, links and commentary are the best!

Loved this:

WARNING TO DEMOCRATS
Sarah Palin
will be coming
to the Lower Forty-Eight
To Take Down Obama

You should hear Democrat Lanny Davis spewing negative rhetoric about Palin's decision. He just claimed that she is running away from the "ethics charges" which is BULL****!!! All 15 of the ethics lawsuits have been dismissed!! What a fool Davis is. Here - "Voting Female" says it best:

Sarah Palin announced today that she will seek her fortunes as a Republican Shaker and Mover in the Lower Forty Eight and will not seek a new term as Governor of Alaska.

Ok all you Obama Socialists, you can be afraid now… she is on her way and SHE MEANS BUSINESS!

Obama has shown he is nothing but a Clueless Wealth Spreader, a Job Loss Promoter, an Economy Destroyer, and A Government Grower.

Palin is handing over control of the Alaska Governership to the Alaska Lt. Governor at the end of this month. And, no doubt Sarah’s decision to go with her national level goals for We the People will be blogged and questioned… I know exactly why she has chosen to do this and do this now… and it is not going to be good for Socialists trying to ruin this country. hahahahahahahahaha


Sarah’s Popularity Remains Sky High
Welcome Sarah to the Lower 48!
IT IS A
DAMN SOCIALIST MESS
DOWN HERE
AND
WE NEED YOU!

There is another political hack being interviewed on Fox News who is trying to spin this as "political suicide." What an idiot!! Palin explained EXACTLY why she resigned when she did. It is for EVERYTHING POSITIVE FOR HER STATE AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA. Something that America-bashing bogus POTUS ObamaFRAUD would never do. He's in it for himself. Sarah Palin is in politics for WE THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA!

Whatever Sarah Palin decides to do with her future, she will be a very effective spokesperson (whether for her own run for president or helping a CONSERVATIVE NOMINEE) going around doing speeches in America!!

GO SARAH!!!

Hat Tip:

Voting Female Speaks

The Statue

DO YOU KNOW
WHAT THIS IS? WHERE THIS
IS?

This statue
currently stands outside
the Iraqi palace,



Now home to the 4th Infantry
division.

It will
eventually
be shipped home

And put in the
memorial
museum in Fort Hood , TX

The statue
was
created by
an Iraqi
artist named Kalat,
who for years was
forced by
Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds
of bronze busts
of Saddam that dotted Baghdad .

Kalat was
so
grateful for the Americans liberation of his country;

He
melted 3 of the heads of the fallen
Saddam and made the statue as a
memorial to the American soldiers

and their
fallen
warriors.

Kalat
worked on this
memorial night and day for several months.

To the left of
the
kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort
as he mourns the
loss of his comrade in arms.

Do you
know why we
don't hear about this in the news?

Because it
is heart
warming
and
praise worthy...

The media
avoids it
because it does not have the shock effect.

But
we
can do something about it.

We
can
pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our
brave
military who are making a difference.

And
please pass this
on!

Hat Tip: Susan Reinhardt via email

Conservatism is the Antidote to Tyranny [Update]

Found the following video today - quite by accident actually. It is absolutely riveting! In the beginning, it asks the question, "Humanity, what have you become? When animals become more human than us...there is a real problem. Near the end you will see the statement, "when animals become more compassionate than humans, it is a sign of the end times. Wake up people." [Note: Some of what is written on the screen of the video doesn't actually apply to this post.]

Loss of Humanity Video Link


As I watched this video, a thought jumped out at me. The parallels of the attacks we view in that video and what is happening in our nation today between the current soft tyranny of government which is incessantly attacking the patriots who believe in liberty, freedom, conservative values and ethics, free speech rights, low taxes etc. cannot be missed or denied. [Note: A few paragraphs down, you will see a second video that serves as a perfect example of the far-left liberal haters and their attacks against anyone who does not believe as they do.]

I started reading Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto" today. Get this book! It is excellent! I have only completed the first two chapters, but Mark has already brilliantly exposed the differences between the liberal leftist progressive "Statists" and their worldview for America, vs. the Conservative ideals that were the foundation of our nation. I have highlighted so many paragraphs that I would love to share.

Levin explains why he doesn't use the term "liberal," but rather the term "statist" to describe the Modern Liberal in the United States today.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as Statist.

Oftentimes, a video is worth a thousand word essay. Please watch this exchange between radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham (who subbed for Bill on the O'Reilly Factor yesterday) and Gloria Feldt on the subject of the verbal bashing that Miss California has been receiving from the Lamestream Media and the SILENCE of "feminist" groups (that are supposed to come to the rescue of women being verbally attacked like that).

Hateful Leftist Gloria Feldt Slanders Laura Ingraham-- Attacks Miss California

Certainly doesn't remind us of how the herd of buffalo came back (with reinforcements) to rescue the young calf that was viciously being ganged up on by many tigers in the first video above...does it?

In the following paragraph quotes from Levin's book you will see exactly WHY Ms. Gloria Feldt could not bring herself to defend Miss California for her own personal beliefs (despite the fact that she does not agree with them) and actually jumped on the bandwagon to continue the attacks against this young woman.

Levin's book [with my comments added]:

The Statist [think Gloria Feldt in previous video as just one example] veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon* [see update below]the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does -- whether the Marxist promise of "the workers' paradise" or the Great Society's "War on poverty" -- the Statist [think Obama and many in Congress today] demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions,[Obama] what is left to limit the Statist's [Obama and most in Congress] ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. [Obama admin, Congress, courts]

In the midst stands the individual,[think Laura Ingraham defending the free speech rights of Miss California in that video] who was a predominate focus of the Founders. When living freely and pursuing his own legitimate interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statist's [Feldt] - [qualities like Laura's and Carrie Prejean's] initiative, self-reliance, and independence. As the Statist [Feldt, Obama, many in Congress] is building a culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen takes on dronelike qualities in service to the state, [think ObamaBorg Bots] the individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavior. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. [the spending bills, promotion of abortion with tax-payer money, silencing conservatives etc.]

The Statist also knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. [this is where Obama and the majority in Congress are making HUGE mistakes - because they are both forcing their will upon the people at a rate that makes the average patriot's head spin!] Thus he marches in incremental steps, [well - used to do it that way], adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. [like using a financial crisis to get taxpayer money for 9,000 earmarks and porkulus spending]. Today his pace is more rapid, [yup!] for resistance has slowed. [NOT ANYMORE! TEA Party power!!] And at no time does the Statist do an about-face. But not so with some who claim the mantle of conservatism but are, in truth, neo-Statists, [like that traitor Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins] who would have the Conservative abandon the high ground of the founding principles for the quicksand of a soft tyranny. [Obama & cohorts]

Mark goes on and describes the fact that "liberty's treasures defy cataloguing." The Statist's scorn for liberty is misplaced and highly corrosive. Levin observes:

Liberty's permeance in American society often makes its manifestations elusive or invisible to those born into it. Even if liberty is acknowledged, it is often taken for granted and its permanence assumed.

WOW! What a powerful point he makes! In fact, this is why I think that many college students were led astray into the Kool-Aid cult of Obamaland during the campaign. They don't study history and know not of the dangers of socialism. To them, it was something knew (that is...if they even knew what Obama meant by his brand of "hope" and "change.")

I have seen many bumper stickers that have the "COEXIST" word accompanied by different religious symbols on it. That's all well and good, one might say. The fact that we live in a primarily Christian nation allows such freedoms. But the trouble is, when it comes to governing, the Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Islamism agenda of the Obama Admin. doesn't so easily "coexist" with the liberty of our Constitutional Republic. All of those "isms" are, each and of themselves, an increasingly corrosive threat to liberty!! As Mark states in chapter 2 - "the Statist's Utopia can take many forms (see above) but they are all of the same species - tyranny." What's more, as we saw in the Laura Ingraham vs. Gloria Feldt conversation (more like argument!), "the primary principle around with the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word -equality."

Now watch this. Mark Levin brilliantly lays out the differences between what the Founders meant by the term "equality" vs. how the Statists use (actually - misuse) the term.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equalism, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.

During the campaign, Obama is quoted as saying, "[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation." But Mark Levin points out that "salvation is not government's to give. Indeed, it is not a grant to mankind from mankind. Under the wrong conditions and in the wrong hands, this deviant view is a powerful tool against humanity."

This is what millions of Americans, including the TEA Party participants, are sensing from Obama. They are all seeing this soft tyranny creeping up and are highly concerned of what it will look like four years from now. One good thing to note is that our American history and traditions make it more difficult to transform our civil society towards tyranny. And Mark makes this excellent point:

[S]till, tyranny is a threat that looms over all societies, preventable only by the active vigilance of the people.

Levin concludes the first chapter:

The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An "effective" government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist,[think RINOS] it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist.

[T]he Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny and its cheery acceptance by the neo-Statist. He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society's real and perceived ailments if no to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested coorperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.

Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny for many reasons. But perhaps one of the most important reasons of all is because we believe, as the Founding Fathers did that prudence must be exercised in assessing change.

Levin:

Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism, and placing at risk the very principles the Conservative holds dear.

Sounds EXACTLY like what we are going through right now...doesn't it?

Source:
Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin; Threshold Editions of Simon and Schuster, Inc. 2009 pp. 4, 8-11, 14, 18-19.

*******
* Update:

I have to confess, I really didn't know the complete meaning of the term "dudgeon" when I first quoted it from Mark Levin's book. I figured that it meant something like "anger" and "hatred." This morning, I decided to look up the word in the dictionary. It is a highly descriptive word and fits EXACTLY to the situation that readers have witnessed in the exchange between Laura Ingraham and Gloria Feldt regarding Miss California.

dudg⋅eon1   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun a feeling of offense or resentment; anger: We left in high dudgeon.

Origin:
1565–75; orig. uncert.


Synonyms:
indignation, pique.

Notice that the first definition claims that the origin was "uncertain."

Now, look at this "obsolete" entry at dictionary.com:

dudg⋅eon2   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun Obsolete. 1. a kind of wood used esp. for the handles of knives, daggers, etc.
2. a handle or hilt made of this wood.
3. a dagger having such a hilt.

Origin:
1400–50; late ME; cf. AF digeon

There is more! The following entry describes the "smiling Ms. Feldt" quite well as she systematically shoots daggers of hatred against Miss California!

dudg·eon 1 (dŭj'ən)
n. A sullen, angry, or indignant humor: "Slamming the door in Meg's face, Aunt March drove off in high dudgeon" (Louisa May Alcott).

[Origin unknown.]

dudg·eon 2 (dŭj'ən)
n.
Obsolete A kind of wood used in making knife handles.
Archaic
A dagger with a hilt made of this wood.
The hilt of a dagger.

[Middle English dogeon, possibly from Anglo-Norman.]

The following describes how the term "dudgeon" relates to our current use of the term "daggers" when we use it metaphorically to describe "throwing daggers" in verbal spewings of hate:

Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, n. 1. The root of the box tree, of which hafts for daggers were made. --Gerarde (1597).

2. The haft of a dagger. --Shak.

3. A dudgeon-hafted dagger; a dagger. --Hudibras.
Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, n. [W. dygen anger, grudge.] Resentment; ill will; anger; displeasure.

I drink it to thee in dudgeon and hostility.

Sir T. Scott.
Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, a. Homely; rude; coarse. [Obs.]

By my troth, though I am plain and dudgeon, I would not be an ass. --Beau. & Fl.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source

Notice the synonyms:

Synonyms

huff
miff
pique
resentment
ruffled feathers
umbrage
bitterness
anger
displeasure
fury

Did you see that first one - "huff"?? Reminds me of Ariana Huffington! Sometimes people DO live up to the meaning of their name!!! LOL!!!

P.S. Wayne of Jeremiah Films has placed this post (via my Protect Biblical Marriage blog) in his headline list today.

Thanks Wayne! LOTS of good information to read over there!!

Told You So!

The concerns that conservative bloggers shared (over the past election cycle and beyond) about Obama's past radical associations; i.e. the "Chicago Way" ruthless political thuggery, financial terrorism brought about by Obama puppet-master and supporter George Soros, the ACORN voter fraud, schmoozing with terrorists - both domestic (Ayers, Dohrn) and foreign (mostly Islamic but to many to list) and with criminals (Rezko, Blago), far-left ideology, sitting in the pews of a racist anti-white church while the "reverend" spewed hatred towards Americans, and last but not least, the neo-Marxist Fascism that Obama wants as the "future" for America - might just pale in comparison to the horrible things he is actually now doing to our country with just two months into his Usurpency.

Nice Deb reports: Video: Dick Morris Says Obama Repealed Of The Declaration Of Independence.

Let's not forget the following:

Quote:
[atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com]
09/04/obama-bows-and-kisses-the-of-saudi-king.html
#comments

· His first phone call was to Abbas, the terrorist
leader of the Palestinian Authority and al Fatah;

· His first interview was on al-Arabiya News
Channel, where he apologized for the United
States;

· His first appointment of an envoy to Syria was
the appointment of George Soros;

· He bankrolled Hamas out of Whitehouse funds to
the tune of $23 million, following Israel’s
invasion of Gaza to stop the missile strikes;

· He promised another 900 million to Gaza;

· He immediately adopted the Saudi Plan as policy
for Israel, which favors a contiguous Palestinian
state (that is, a geographic area that connects
Gaza with the West Bank and includes Jerusalem –
necessarily dividing Israel);

· He dismissed charges against the perpetrators of
the bombing of the USS Cole;

· He announced the shut-down of Gitmo, and
apologized to the Islamic world for its
existence;

· He announced that his first summit would be an
Islamic summit;

· He turned a blind eye to Iran’s launch of a
satellite capable of triangulating coordinates for
ICBMs that Iran is furiously trying to develop for
the delivery of nuclear weapons;

· He turned a blind eye to the release of A. Q.
Khan, Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, who is
believed to be the very person to have delivered
nuclear bomb technology to North Korea;

· He intends to eliminate our anti-ballistic
missile defense program;

· He intends to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal
by 75%;

· He intends to reduce our military budget by
25%;

· He has reneged on developing nuclear power;

· He continues to block off-shore or expanded
drilling;

· He continues to try and block the production of
coal (45% of our electric generating capability)

So who's side is this guy on?

[www.chiaobama.com]

Ender, your compilation of our traitor presidents deeds is unbelievable and outrageous. Thanks for updating us on what an imbecile our president is! GOD save us from this doofus!!! /quote

*******

The good news is, as The Right Side of Life reports: Thousands of Tea Parties Planned for April 15.



WE THE PEOPLE will be sending a VERY STRONG MESSAGE to the "powers that be" in Washington D.C.!



Over the weekend, I saw a portion of the movie, "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson. I happened to tune in just as the patriots of America were going into battle against the British army. I saw that "Don't Tread on Me" flag being carried by one of the American patriots!

Those who fought so valiantly to gain our freedom would want all American Patriots today to fight against (via protesting) this Usurper president and the tax-and-spend clueless majority members of Congress who would bankrupt our children and grandchildren into a debt that will take decades, if not generations, to pay!

This April 15, 2009 GO TO YOUR NEAREST TEA PARTY!



DO IT FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!

SHAKE UP WASHINGTON D.C.

THEY WORK FOR US! WE THE PEOPLE!! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!

Hat Tips:

Nice Deb

The Right Side of Life

Alan Keyes' Blog: Loyal to Liberty

I was excited to find out via WorldNetDaily that Alan Keyes now has a blog! It is called Loyal to Liberty - "Where faith gives reason for citizen action." What a great concept! Our Christian faith gives us all the reasons in the world to participate in citizen action; especially when we are witnessing right before our very eyes a power grab by Resident Obama and the Liberal majority in Congress. Notice that I didn't say Democrat majority. The reason is because there is a group of "blue dog" Democrats in the House who voted against the StimuWASTE bill while three RINO Republicans allowed it to pass in the Senate.

The liberal Senators and Congressmen are intent on dismissing the will of the majority of people in America. I have heard that the calls going into Washington were something like 1,000 to 1 AGAINST that bill!!

What does this tell us? It's unmistakably obvious.

There is a monumental disconnect between these elected officials and the American people that they are supposed to be representing!

I haven't done the proper research for this yet, but I am willing to bet that most of the 9 or 11 "blue dog" Democrats who voted against the wasteful spending are probably freshman representatives. They are most likely fiscal conservatives, too. They obviously haven't been corrupted by the Washington earmark gluttony that wreaks of the stench brought about by the lobby-frenzied, pay to play machine!! Let us hope and pray that they don't catch the disease.

Here are a few brief excerpts from Mr. Keyes latest post. He starts out with a comment from "Ed" that basically concludes:

In our battle to advance Reagan Conservatism how does promoting Christian morality help our cause?

At the Loyal to Liberty blog, Mr. Keyes lists and explains five tenets of conservatism. Here is just the list. Please read the explanations of each tenet Mr. Keyes blog.

1. The preservation of Freedom.

2. Securing the blessings of liberty.

3. Establishing limited government.

4. Promoting respect for law.

5. Preserving the moral basis of freedom.

Easy quiz. How many of these tenets do you think agree with basic Christian beliefs? Answer: all of them!

Lots of great information in the entire article! I especially appreciated the truth shared in this statement:

The real choice we face is between totalitarian government based ultimately on force, and self-government grounded upon respect for what is morally right.

So true today! Amen!

May we return to "self-government grounded upon respect for what is morally right" in America - just as our Founding Fathers intended!



Hat tips:

WorldNetDaily

Loyal to Liberty