Transparent Rudy

This takes the cake. Giuliani apparently is a big fan of Ronald Reagan and even models himself after the beloved Republican President. This was said by Rudy at a political rally recently, according to Newsmax:

"What we’re lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan,”

Couldn't agree more, but then he says,

"As far as the things that developed my ideas and thinking, which developed as a much younger man, it was Ronald Reagan.”

Of course you did! I should have guessed by your ultra-conservative stance on issues like abortion, gun control and embryonic stem-cell research! Sheesh, could this guy be posturing for the Conservative votes he will need to get the nomination?

Then he nicely "rides the fence" by issuing this statement shortly after:

"I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly. He put us on offense against terrorism. I will always admire him for that.”

So, he loves and admires Reagan, loves what President Bush has done with respect to terrorism, but overall disapproves of Bush's leadership style.

Some thought Rudy would be a bit clumsy at the political game, but as it turns out he (or his speech writer) is playing very while by staying right in the middle.

One quick note though Rudy, no one with half a brain is buying you as a conservative, that dog will not hunt.

Conservative Bloggers, Unite!

According to this Newsmax article, Fred Thompson is neck and neck with McCain in the polls with 17% support.

Thanks to Conservatives too afraid to do what is right, Rudy has 27%.

The North American Union Still Looms...

I have written about this in the past as I believe this particular issue to be of the utmost importance, even compared to coverage of Pelosi's foray into foreign policy relations or Don Imus being raked over the coals by Al "Why do we keep giving this guy press?" Sharpton.

The fact is, our sovereignty as a country is being destroyed right under our noses without our knowledge or consent.

Read this article in Worldnetdaily for details. Here are a few key excerpts:

Many SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Read the linked document which details how the bordes between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should dissappear to allow goods and services to easily pass from one country to the next. Does this sound like a good idea, or are you as concerned as I am that our country is losing her identity?

In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, is quoted as saying:

"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class."

Here are some significant developments (as of middle of 2006, this is an old article) that reinforce the fact that progress is being made to move this country in this direction:

Last month, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, on June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council.

Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."

The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.

In light of this hidden agenda, suddenly our President's inability, or at least unwillingness to tighten security at our borders and stem the tide of illegal immigrants make perfect sense as it fits perfectly with his father's dream of a One World Government.

(U.S. Commerce Secretary) Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.

This kind of thing must not make "good news" because the MSM refuses to cover it, in spite of the strategic consequences these changes represent to our country.

More interesting reads related to this subject:

NASCO (International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor)
Council on Foreign Relations
North American Free Trade Agreement
Debut of the "Amero"

Shocking News!

Women's group plans to endorse Clinton

Can't say I am suprised at all by this development. What scares me (besides Hillary herself) is that anyone would vote for her simply for the novelty of having a female President. This isn't only limited to women either; I have had conversations with many a man who thought it would be "cool" to have a woman running the country not to mention what a boost it would be to women's rights movements.

The simplest analogy I use to get them to thinking about the haphazard way they are making this important decision is this:

Harken back to the Lewinsky scandal (I know, I know, bear with me). Remember when Hillary claimed she knew nothing of it until just before the story broke. This can mean only two things:

1. She was lying, as what woman would not know her man was stepping out. This goes to her lack of integrity and a character flaw that she is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, no matter who she has to run over along the way (just like her hubby).

2. She was telling the truth, in which case she is just not smart and incapable of making decisions that affect the whole globe.

To me, that alone makes her questionable and it has made more than one person reconsider their decision.

Jesus, come back!

Today I got an email through Townhall.com from Guiliani asking me to join his team to help him become the next leader of the free world.

I shudder to think of this guy running our country. This coupled with the even slim possibility of Hillary getting the Democratic nomination makes me yearn for the return of the Lord!

There isn't one candidate on either side of the aisle that I can get behind, and I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils"; my conscience simply wll not allow it.

Just a Quick Pause to Say Hello...

Wow, I last posted way back in January. No doubt some have assumed my blogging days are over and you would never see me again. The truth is, I have been lurking, reading your thoughts, dissecting your debates and trying to keep up with current events that I believe are important to our future.

Mrs.Bullfrog, the Tadpoles and I have been very busy as we decided around the first of the year that we wanted to move into a bigger place. Our 2 bedroom was getting smaller as the kids get bigger (that's what happens when you keep feedin' 'em!). So we started the search assuming we would stay in the same neighborhood, but the rents in San Diego even in the 2 years we were staying in our old place really ballooned to the point where you don't get nearly the square footage for the money as other areas. So we decided to move North a bit farther, the biggest impact being to my commute as I am now driving 90 miles every day instead of 12 (ouch!). Fortunately, I am carpooling which makes it alot easier and mama and the little ones are happy with the new diggs. We got twice the square footage in a much newer home for just a few hundred dollars. We will rent this place for a year or so and consider buying in this neighborhood if we find it is to our liking (so far, so good).

So, I am around and look forward to having time to once again commune with you all, but for now home and work are keeping me very busy. In a couple weeks things should slow down at work and I can get time in the evenings to publish some of my thoughts.

Thanks to Little Miss Chatterbox and Cynthia for stopping by with good wishes, I miss you all too.

Liberty Without a Creator

Americans love freedom and liberty. We hold it dear and we protect it literally with our very lives. But what exactly is liberty? I am a big Webster fan (not the little cute actor, the dictionary guy), especially when it comes to defining words for which we have long taken the meaning for granted. Here is how Webster defines liberty:

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
synonym see FREEDOM
- at liberty
1 : FREE
2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED

Probably none of these definitions are a big suprise to anyone. I think #1 and #2 are specifically relevant to personal freedoms that we like to enjoy so I will focus on these. Also note that liberty and freedom are basically synonymous.

Definition 1a states, "the power to do as one pleases". Upon reading this, I instantly think of things that I certainly DO NOT want people doing (whether it "pleases" them or not), like selling dangerous narcotics, preying on children sexually, etc. It is probably safe to assume then that liberty does not mean doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Anyone who believes in absolute freedom of this kind I am guessing has never been assaulted or had their goods stolen. At best they are not being realistic, at worst they are of the type that wishes to commit these acts without restraint.

Using this argument, I am persuaded that, at least for the purposes of this discussion, definition #1 should be discarded and we should focus on #2:

2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits

So now freedom and liberty is "granted" and we are given "permission" to be free. This will offend some who believe we are absolute free agents, freely roaming the earth doing what "pleases us". The problem with that is, when your enjoyment of what pleases you violates the freedom of another, it is not freedom anymore. I would say it is immorality.

I will offer that without morality, there can be no liberty because without a moral code or "specified limits", freedom ceases to be free. Here are two quotes that nicely sum up this thought:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?" - George Washington

The question then becomes, who decides for me what is permissible? Who grants me certain rights? Who says what is moral?

Some would say it is the role of government to grant rights to people and decide how those rights should be used, but I disagree. I believe it is the role of government to protect my liberties or rights from being encroached upon. I think the founders of this country would agree:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

This quote hits on exactly what I am getting at with this post: that the natural liberties we have are a gift from our Creator and that it is the job of government to preserve them by restraining those who would like to violate them. This is done primarily by enacting a moral code or system of laws. If this is insufficient to deter some, then punishment becomes necessary to further deter and/or restrain the violator.

So I will summarize by stating that without a Creator, there can be no real freedom; and where one desires to protect liberty, a moral code must be established.

"Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn

I am working on a post titled, "Liberty without a Creator", until that is published I thought this article from the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Page was pretty interesting. It raises intriguing questions about Global Warming and the scientific community.

Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent a letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson requesting that he cease and desist in his company’s support of scientists who are skeptical about the global change theory, which basically says mankind exacerbates the Global Warming problem by our consumption.

Here are some key excerpts from the letter:

It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the "deniers."

Since when was it "bad" to challenge even long held and well supported scientific theory (which I am not convinced Global Warming is, yeah, I said it)? Isn't it actually a good thing to put a theory to the test against facts, and now that we are at it, is that not how a theory goes from being a theory to being accepted as fact?

...that ExxonMobil "come clean" about its past denial activities, and that the corporation take positive steps by a date certain toward a new and more responsible corporate citizenship.

That is an almost Gestapo-like statement in my opinion, "Confess your sins and be cleansed!

A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone.

Would anyone really have a problem with Exxon for doing this? To me it only lends objectivity to the whole issue and I commend them for their courage in approaching such a controversial debate from the dissenting side.

I will stop there and I think I have covered the message the letter was meant convey.

While one could argue that Exxon is only interested in seeing consumers filling up there SUVs without fear of damaging the planet, I though at least their angle raised some interesting questions.

1. Why are Senators, specifically Senators who profit from the sale of oil, so interested in seeing this debate end?

2. Does their personal interest in oil sales lend any credibility to their position as you would think they would prefer Americans be "deniers" in this particular debate?

3. Is it really honest to say that this debate is officially over and that we should no longer even question Global Warming and the human factor?

4. Does it take credibility away from scientists who would prefer that no dissenting debate be allowed?

5. Is it more scientific to assume something is wrong and find evidence to the contrary, or to assume it is correct and look for supporting empirical evidence?

Can You Say, "Amnesty"?

President Bush is appointing Florida Senator Mel Martinez as the next Republican National Committee Chair. Article here

Why is this significant?

It is significant because,

Martinez is a leading advocate of a Bush-style solution to the nation's immigration problems.

In fact, Martinez led the battle for amnesty in the U.S. Senate.

So, if Bush can't win amnesty with a Republican controlled Congress, he intends to try again with the Democrats, with the help of his new champion.

This in spite of the fact that most of his base hates the idea of amnesty. Despicable.

Better TV for All?

It is definitely time for a rant. I just got off the phone with DISH Network, and after an hour of talking until I was blue in the face, they did nothing more than condescend to me and refuse to make unacceptable situation satisfactory. But I guess a little background is in order...

About 6 months ago we decided to move from cable to satellite. It seemed logical because satellite offered similar programming to cable but cost less, and they claimed to have fewer outages, clearer reception, etc. In researching the few satellite service providers, DISH Network stood out for their programming and packages/pricing that appealed to us. Of course, when you call these companies as a "potential customer" they are your best friend and willing to do whatever it takes to sign the 18 month contract: waive this charge, free shipping, free install, we'll come by once a week and wash your cars, and so on...

So we took the plunge, and overall, the service was better than cable; better reception for sure and we had more channels to choose from for less than what we paid for cable, great. There were a few problems at the onset, however:

I am a baseball fan, and everyone knows satellite providers usually charge a premium for local sports programming. So I asked the agent (at this point my bestest buddy) if that were the case. I was reassured that in my package I would receive a specific local station that aired all season games for my local team. This was completely untrue, of course, and I would need to shell out an additional amount per month to see my team play.

The technicians they sent to do the install were incompetent. They asked me if I had a ladder so they could get on the roof. You are a satellite dish install tech, and you don't have a ladder? K...

After the install was complete, I was not getting reception for like 2 dozen channels. The kind of person I am, even if all the channels not coming in are Home Shopping and Oxygen for Women and I have no intention of watching them, I want what I paid for. So they sent another tech (this one had a ladder) who came to the conclusion that the previous guy basically screwed up the install. He fixed it and I had all one hundred-some-odd channels at my disposal, sweet.

My first bill shows charges for things I know nothing about; one is a charge for NOT having my satellite receiver connected to a phone line. Apparently, the receiver can either do daily programming updates through a phone line, or via the satellite signal and the satellite method costs extra, weird. It seems like a simple problem, but whoever built our house decided to only put phone jacks in the master bedroom and the kitchen, so I would either have to run a ridiculously long phone line to one of these jacks, which my wife wouldn't appreciate for it's lack of aesthetic value, or have a line put in by the phone company at around $100, which is more than the monthly charges for the 18 months of my contract. So, we decided to eat the monthly charge. I did try to talk to an agent of the company and explain the situation in hopes that they would waive the fee, even for just a month or two (to the tune of $10), and the people who were previously waiving every fee conceivable to get me to sign on were suddenly the biggest tight wads I have ever known.

After those few issues were over things went well. Good service, clear reception, no outages for 6 months, nice. Maybe they really are better than cable and as they claim: "Better TV for All"

Fast forward to last week...

We recently decided to quick watching TV cold turkey and limit our viewing to DVDs, this way we spend more time with the kids and we can better control what we and our little ones are watching. I am addicted to television and can easily spend 3 or 4 hours zoned out in front of the tube not interacting with anyone. My wife hates television and wishes we didn't even have one in the house. I noticed my daughter was starting to retire to a quiet corner of the living room when the TV came on and daddy was plopped on the couch. It turns out I had programmed her that when TV was on, daddy was unavailable, so she learned to amuse herself at these times. That realization really hurt, so I decided, and my wife enthusiastically agreed that we needed to cancel our satellite service.

And now the really bad news. I called DISH Network Friday fully expecting them to do their darndest to try and keep us as customers, and they did not disappoint. They offered discounts, smaller viewing packages (as I had told them we wanted to watch less), you name it. I thanked them for their earnest and asked them to cancel service anyway. At this point they explained that since I was canceling my contract early, I would be charged a fee based on a $13 per month early cancellation fee for every month of my contract that wasn't fulfilled. I was fine with that and it came to around $170.

Now this is the key part of the conversation: the agent (forgot her name, last time I do that) asked if I wanted these fees charged to my account immediately, or did I want to be billed for them along with the remaining service charges. I said, "Go ahead and send me a bill and I will pay everything at the same time." She said, "Okay" and after a fond farewell and a promise to take me back should I ever decide I wanted to resume my life as a couch potato, we were done. Oh, I forgot to mention this and it is a little comical. There was still the issue of hardware, both the receivers in the house, and the dish on my roof; this is how they handle that: they send you boxes and you have to send them their hardware back, including some part of the satellite dish. So I have to climb up onto my roof and use a screwdriver to get this thing or they will charge me some other fee. Great, now I am risking life and limb, fine.

So now I am waiting for the boxes to show up, and in the meantime, my checking account shows a charge of $173, that they had charged to my account the SAME DAY I CANCELLED! This along with several overdraft fees charged to my checking account as I never transferred adequate fees to cover a charge that I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT! I was livid! I called them this morning and explained to the agent I got connected with and I just got the run around. She kept citing the original contract, which apparently states that legally they can come for my first born child if I cancel early, guess I should have read that part. She told me that they normally don't bill for cancellations, and that the agent who I spoke to originally never noted the account to reflect that we had such an agreement. By this time, I was raising my voice and challenging her to explain to me, apart from a legal standpoint, why what they did was okay. She just kept saying, "The contract says..." and "...I understand, and I am very sorry, but there is nothing we can do..." which is the LAST thing a dissatisfied customer wants to hear. I know, I worked in customer service for nine years; we went out of our way to win clients over by bending company policy. I told her I wanted to talk to someone who could help me, so she got a supervisor, who I fully expected to give me the same story, just more forcefully and with the experience of someone who had been giving folks the run around much longer. Once again, they did not disappoint.

She hemmed and hawed, basically saying that she understood, but their hands were tied. She even said, "Let me go talk to someone to see if there is an outside chance we could do something" and put me on hold. At this point, she probably got a cup of coffee, used the restroom, and told a co-worker about the "jerk" she had on hold. She then came back, "I am very sorry...", "I understand, but"; an interesting word, "but", it basically means, "Everything said before 'but' means nothing, while everything after is what is REALLY going to happen".

So nada, zilch, nothing. No big surprise really, it happens all the time with various "service providers". They only care about the bottom line and no one seems to care about winning the customer over and cultivating customer loyalty. And it's not like there isn't competition so where is the effort to be better than the next guy? I don't get it.

This also means I have to be the guy who asks for names, operator badge number, and makes sure to say, "Make sure you note the account please", which I will do begrudgingly, because down deep I would like to take the kindness and decency of people for granted (especially when I am paying them).

I intend to do what I can to let folks know that DISH Network is not the best choice for their satellite service needs. Consider yourself warned.

Now, now, play nice...

I snagged this from Townhall.com:


Nice!

Predictions for the 2008 Elections

This article by Chuck Baldwin sums up well my thoughts on why the Republicans lost the election and also makes some interesting, albeit dreary, predictions for the elections two years from now.

Here are some key excerpts:

Most people saw the handwriting on the wall for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. As for the Senate, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, so who controls the gavel is of little consequence.

Hear, hear! Why bother with two parties when they both look so much alike these days, let's have one party called the Repubrocrats and save some confusion.

George Bush's neocons have all but decimated whatever genuine conservatism remained in the GOP, and they did it on the backs of the faithful conservatives still in the party.

God Bless those true conservatives who actually make decisions based on principles that "pseudo-conservatives" only talk about.

That President Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signals a significant policy reversal for Bush. As late as the day before the election, Bush said emphatically that Rumsfeld would stay until the end of his term. But the day after Democrats seized the House, Rumsfeld was fired.

'Nuff said.

It does not take the gift of prophecy to predict that Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, will almost certainly assent to some form of an American troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Republican Party now understands that if the war in Iraq continues as it is into 2008, the GOP will be murdered at the polls, and the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she is) would most certainly win the White House. In other words, President Bush and Republicans are about to engage in the biggest "cut and run" strategy you have ever seen.

I hate the idea of leaving the people of Iraq in the lurch, but could Chuck be right that Republicans will cut and run to because it is politically expedient? Will the Democrats comparison of Iraq to Vietname turn out to be painfully accurate?

I, here and now, predict that the GOP nominee for president in 2008 will most definitely be a pro-choice "moderate" who will enthusiastically embrace the Bush/Pelosi doctrine of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as Bush's goal of establishing a North American Union. I also predict that he will most certainly endorse civil unions for same-sex couples.

Sounds incredible, but plausible doesn't it? Again, I hate the thought of this happening, but we as citizens need to face facts and use the power of our vote to change the course of this country. It sounds rather idealistic, but if Americans truly had the courage to vote in a candidate from a viable third party, I believe it would do wonders for our political system. At the very least it would rattle Democrats and Republicans out of complacency!

This pathetic loyalty to the GOP for some "lesser of two evils" mantra is so utterly bankrupt that only the most apathetic lackey could continue to embrace it.

Harsh but true. Voting against the candidate you dislike instead of for one you know can do the job is exactly what conservatives criticized the Democrats for when they voted for Kerry is it not?

It is time for the end of politics as usual and only you and I can make a real difference.


UPDATE:

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken the first steps in a possible bid for the 2008 Presidential nomination by forming an exploratory committee. The purpose of such a committee is to gauge the appeal of a potential candidate without officially putting your name in the hat and being subject to campaign rules.

The odds are against him getting nominated because of his stance on abortion rights, same-sex marriage and gun control, issues that are important to conservatives who he would have to win over to get the Republican ticket.

He definitely fits the bill of a moderate conservative nicely though. He became enormously popular in 2001 as Mayor of New York for his handling of the 911 attacks and for the drop in crime rates in that city during his two terms there. I don't believe this is enough to overcome his liberal leanings, however.

Let's hope he doesn't get too far.

The Aftermath...

The successes this election of those more liberally minded folks is obvious, but what's with the bragging? A guy came by my desk and was telling me about all the great stuff Clinton did when he was in office!? They really are full of themselves right now.

I remember being polite when the Republicans won the House and although it may have occurred to me to run around telling every lib, "In your face!", I restrained myself.

Oh well, life goes on. There were a couple of key propositions that got passed that made me happy:

PROP A - build another airport in San Diego, not happenin'. We just renovated our existing airport at a huge cost.

PROP C - San Diego can contract out to non-city employees. Competition = better services at lower cost. Everybody wins.

PROP 1A - Make sure monies apportioned for a purpose is ACTUALLY USED for that purpose. Why we votin' on this again? Seems like common sense (unless you are a California beaurocrat).

PROP 83 - Tighter reins on sexual predators. They have to stay at least 2000 feet away from places children congregate, and they have to wear GPS, in the immortal words of the band Heat Wave, "Always and Forever".

I voted against every new bond measure, but I was in the minority and I think this has to do with the fact that people think "better roads, less traffic" sounds really good, but they don't care to know or understand WHERE that money comes from to get it done. So my kids will be paying for these bonds FOR-EV-ER (anybody seen "The Sandlot"?).

I did vote against the cigarette tax, which proponents said would save lives because people would be forces to smoke less for financial reasons. This one failed, so the special interest folks will have to find some other creative way to make money on a false premise, shouldn't be hard as they obviously have degrees in that particular area.

All in all, things didn't go terribly well for conservatives, but my faith lies not in people, but God ultimately.

Reality Check for Angelina Jolie

In this article on Townhall.com, Michelle Malkin takes on statements made by the Hollywood actress regarding U.S. aid to foreign refugees. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on entertainers jumping on the soap box in a fit of righteous indignation and bashing our country without really seeing the big picture. Here is a key quote:

In the land of make-believe, Jolie's call to pour more tax dollars into the U.N. refugee agency's coffers might well help to stem the refugee tide. But in the real world, it will only perpetuate exploitation.

I was equally offended when Sean Penn took a plane to Iraq and came back "enlightened", pretending to have all the answers to the issues brewing in the Middle East. Some of these problems have been going on for centuries and are a direct result of corrupt governments and organizations, but the "Hollyweirdos" think throwing more money at the problem will make everything better.

What does fame and endless disposable income do to these people? Next time you wish for money, power and fame, remember, you too could be transformed into an elitist, self-righteous "Hollyweirdo".

California Marriage Safe

Looks like the institution of marriage is safe in California (for now). Details here.

Of course, those interested in pushing the Gay Agenda on all Americans will not stop trying to redefine marriage to suit their needs. The most significant quote from the article, and the one that sums up my thoughts on this hot button topic:

"courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental institution as marriage."

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege and a majority of California voters cast their ballots in 2000 to define marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman. The people have spoken, but this doesn't deter those "hyper-politically correct" folks who think defining marriage this way somehow descriminates against them and those they ally with.

To some, this issue is not important and we should move on to more "pressing" matters. Do your homework and find out how redefining marriage has affected other countries who tried it. It is a significant change that will have a huge negative impact on our country. It is our responsibility as citizens to understand this issue and how it could potentially affect our culture and cast our votes accordingly.

Forgive My Lack of Posts...

Things have been a bit hectic around here as of late, which is why I have not posted much. I do have several ideas I am "chewing on" and plan to put something up soon that will hopefully be thought-provoking.

In the meantime, I have been on a reading binge over the last month and would like to know if anyone has read any of the following titles, if so, what was your overall impression?

1. 1984 - George Orwell
2. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest - Ken Kesey
3. The Giver - Lois Lowry

I am currently reading "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury (if you have read it, please don't spoil it!).

1. What did you like/dislike about each book?
2. What thoughts were provoked while reading them?
3. Are any of the concepts presented relevant to our time?

Gang Bangers in the US Military Forces

This is pretty shocking to hear. As if the military doesn't have enough to think about. There is also an interesting article here (Suntimes).

Looks like our armed forces are somewhat loose about who they decide to hire. Now gangs have the penal institutions and the military to use for their own brand of "higher education". God help the neighborhoods these people are from when they return ready to use their new found skills to inflict harm.

Who Says White Guys Can't Dance?

The video says it all. I rest my case.

Will the real Aunt Viv please stand up?

If you are looking for some serious discussion, check out my last entry, "The Good News" and get in on the exchange "Outside the Box" and I are having about Christianity. If you are looking for a little levity, read on...

As mentioned in an earlier blog, we have a new little boy at our house. This means getting up at least once in the "wee" hours to feed the little guy. We are blessed that he sleeps really well already and most times has to be stirred so we can give him a bottle. As mama is with both kids all day while I am at work, I have taken responsibility for doing this every night, which brings me to the subject of this post.

In order to stay awake, I usually turn on the TV and do some channel surfing. Of course, at 3am the only thing to watch is lots of infomercials. There is however an oasis in the midst of the desert; you can find an episode of Fresh Prince of Bel Air on at least one channel at any time of night. I love this show, and as it had it's heyday around the time I was in High School it brings back lots of memories.

Most of the characters are great and the show would not be the same without Will, Alfonso (who doesn't know how to do the "Carlton"?), and "Uncle Phil", AKA James Avery. Although the show ran for 6 years starting in 1990, I really don't remember not laughing out loud during an episode. I think they quit while they were still ahead creatively. The only problem I have with the show is when they changed the character of Aunt Vivian.

The first "Aunt Viv", Janet Hubert-Whitten (pictured, 1990-1993) was perfect for the role and I thought added alot to the dynamic of the show. Anybody remember when everybody was holiday shopping and Aunt Viv got suckered into making a record in one of those mall booths? She did "Proud Mary" some justice! I will admit, I had a big ol' teenage crush on Aunt Viv in the episode where she decided to return to her love of dance and enrolled in ballet classes (she was the "hot" Aunt Viv in that one). Aside from all that she added to the show, she was the "OG" Aunt Viv and as far as I am concerned, the ONLY one!

Apparently, Janet had some differences with cast members and decided to leave the show, while still pregnant no less. The nature of the disagreement is unknown to me but it's impact on my viewing enjoyment continues to this day, because it ushered in the era of the "Wack Aunt Viv", Daphne Reid (1993-1996).

They could not have chosen a more different person to play the character! She looks completely different physically (height, body type, even color), and her attitude sucks! She is the Aunt Viv who nags too much and stands with her arms crossed dissapprovingly 85% of the time. I always feel sorry for Uncle Phil when this Aunt Viv is on the scene. If I were him, they would have had an episode where Aunt Viv gets mysteriously found in the trunk of her Benz at the bottom of a lake or something. Picture Lame Aunt Viv standing in a music booth at the mall singing a Tina Turner song, never happen! Or how about sporting a leotard taking some dance lessons? I shudder at the thought! Would Wannabe Aunt Viv teach a class on African American History at Will and Carlton's prep school and teach Will a thing or two about the REAL Malcolm X? Not even close!

So, at 3 in the morning, picture me turning to one of a few channels and selecting one of several episodes of "Fresh Prince" hoping against all hope that the REAL Aunt Viv is representing.

1. Do you have an "Aunt Viv" preference? If so, why?

2. Favorite Fresh Prince episode?

3. Favorite character?

4. Know any good trivia about the show, or the actors?

The Good News

I believe when man was created in the image of God, we had perfect fellowship with Him. Wanting us to love and obey Him willfully, God gave man a choice and provided guidelines and told him to eat freely of any tree in Eden except for one; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:15-17
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
(from New International Version)

With some help from a certain serpent, Eve chose to eat of this tree anyway as she saw that it was attractive and would certainly be good to taste.

Gen 3:1-5
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (notice here that the serpent takes what God said out of context by saying, 'any tree'; he has not changed his strategy a bit!)
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(from New International Version)

Eve perceived that understanding between good and evil would make her more like God, so pride was ultimately her downfall, and Adam gave in to the same temptation.

Gen 3:6-7
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
(from New International Version)

I find God's treatment of the situation to be a very interesting view into the character of God:

Gen 3:8-9
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
(from New International Version)

As the Bible says that God is omnipresent (existing everywhere) and omniscient (knowing all things), this question seems out of character, but I believe God wasn't trying to ascertain Adam's geographical whereabouts as much as He was trying to help Adam to realize what had occurred when he disobeyed. What He was really asking was, "Adam, where is your heart with me?" so Adam would do some analysis of himself and realize fellowship with his Creator had been broken. God's only concern is our hearts, and He uses every circumstance in life to help us realize where we are with Him; as creatures of His creation made for His enjoyment and glory, this is the most important question that can be asked.

Now the bad news; since Adam fell and sinned against God, and was subsequently cast out of God's fellowship, we, being from the same bloodline, inherited that same propensity to disobey God. I speak of what the Bible describes as the "sinful nature". This is that force within us that causes sin, and must be dealt with above all. The acts of sin that we commit are just a result of this nature working in us, so there are two kinds of sin, the act, and the nature that produces the act.

Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-
(from New International Version)

So the sin nature was passed to us from Adam, and the result was that we committed the act of sin, in fact, we can do nothing else.

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(from New International Version)

Eccl 7:20
20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.
(from New International Version)

Gal 3:22
22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin,
(from New International Version)

1 John 1:8
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
(from New International Version)

It would be to your benefit for me to leave you at this point for a time to ponder your fallen state before a righteous and holy God. What comes next is grace, which is never sweeter than when it is given in our hour of most dire need; when we are laid low and understand how unworthy we really are.

But on to the good news. God did not leave it at that, but carefully restored us to fellowship with him by making the ultimate sacrifice. In the Old Testament, in order for sin to be forgiven, the blood (or life) of a spotless animal had to be spilled annually. The animal died as a propitiation, or appeasement, for the sins that were committed, so God's justice was satisfied for all the sinful acts of the prior year and punishment, which sin deserves, was avoided (phew!). These animal sacrifices were not the end, but were a shadow of things to come and in fact only dealt with the act of sin and not the nature that was guilty of committing them.

God desired to make one final sacrifice, which would satisfy His justice once and for all, so that we could be restored to fellowship with Him unconditionally and permanently. What He did was send a perfect man, Jesus Christ, to live on the earth for 33 years without sin (the lamb without blemish or spot):

Isaiah 53:9
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
(from New International Version)

Jesus lived on earth for the purpose of being the ultimate example of a life that was lived to please God. But even He knew that His purpose in coming here was to die, to be a propitiation for all of mankind.

1 John 2:1-2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
(from New International Version)

2 Cor 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(from New International Version)

Rom 5:6-8
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(from New International Version)

Christ satisfied the Law of God through His death.

So you see, the answer to the big question, "How does one get to heaven?" what I like to call enjoying fellowship with God forever, is really very simple.

Rom 10:9-11
9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
(from New International Version)

Notice I have said nothing about some number of works that you must do; no pilgrimage, no chants, no "Our Fathers". The verse above clearly states, "It is with your heart that you believe and are justified". So it is a matter of belief! Christ did everything, and we must simply lay hold of it! That really is "good news"!

What must one do to avoid heaven? That too is simple. Ignore the facts that were just given to you and you will die separated from God, which is the second, or spiritual, death.

Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(from New International Version)