If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.
Please come and join us. I look forward to seeing you there.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Missions Conference 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
When Down Syndrome Comes Home
"I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." - Psalm 139:14
"I think your daughter has Down Syndrome." This is what the Nurse Practitioner told us mere hours after Hannah was born. He told us that she had physical features that were consistent with Down Syndrome. However, this was not a sure sign that she did indeed have Down Syndrome. They would have to take some blood and send it out to be tested.
Needless to say, this is not what you want to here in the hours following the birth of your child. We didn't know what to think. We didn't know how to act. We had problems coming to grips with the fact that our child might have Down Syndrome. Obviously, if she were to have Down Syndrome, this would be a lifelong endeavor. It's not like it would just go away after a period of time.
We were told that we would have the results of the tests in a few days. We were hoping to know by the time we left the hospital what the prognosis would be. Well, that didn't happen. We waited, and waited, and waited. We had a Doctor appointment set for 2 weeks after her birth, hoping to find out the results - but that did not happen. As the time went on and we were not able to get results, I tried my best to be positive about this. Perhaps the physical similarities were just a coincidence - after all, she was born 2 weeks early. She definitely did not have all of the physical characteristics that would distinguish a Down Syndrome child. These were reasons for hope on my part.
However, we received a call from the doctor a couple of days after this appointment confirming what we knew in the back of our heads but did not want to really admit - Hannah has Down Syndrome. All optimism went right out the door. We had a couple of weeks to come to grips with this diagnosis, but I know that I still was not prepared to hear it. Where do we go from here? What will we need to do differently? Are they able to tell us how serious her diagnosis is?
In addition to the Down Syndrome diagnosis, we were also faced with the fact that Hannah had a hearing problem. The hearing test in the hospital revealed that Hannah cannot hear that well. In a subsequent hearing test, we found out that her ear canals are rather small and they were having difficulty finding out just how bad her hearing is at this time. Perhaps the small ear canals could be the cause of her diminished hearing. Perhaps once her ears and ear canals grow a little bit, her hearing will improve. We have another hearing test scheduled in mid-February to see to what extent her hearing is diminished and to hopefully find out if her growth will help to cause the hearing issues to go away.
In all of this, there was some good news. Many children with Down Syndrome have heart problems. While Hannah was still in the hospital, they did an EKG on her, and found that her heart is functioning properly, and that there are no abnormalities. While that does not diminish the overall diagnosis, we definitely needed some good news and this was cause for hope for us.
Hannah is getting bigger and gaining weight. She is eating well. Her digestive system is healthy. We found out yesterday that her physical development is almost on par with normal child development. Again, some much needed good news.
Through all of this, I had to learn to ask the right questions. Initially, all I wanted to ask was "Why?" Why did this happen to Hannah? Why is this happening to Pam and me? Why can't this happen to someone else? Why can't Hannah be normal? Instead of asking "Why?", I should have been asking "How?" How can I use this to be a better Christian? How can I use this to reach out to those who are not Christian? How can I use this to bring glory to God? While these seem like odd questions in the midst of this huge trial, I needed to realize that God allowed this to happen.
Please note that I said that God allowed this to happen. He did not cause it to happen. God can do what He pleases, and in His omniscience, He chose to allow us to go through this trial. We don't know why. We may never know why. But one thing that I do know - we can handle this with His help. In order to get through, we will need to rely on God, not on ourselves. He will give us the grace and the strength that we need to get through.
Several years ago, Ron Hamilton wrote a song after he had one of his eyes removed. It is a source of strength and encouragement for me. Here is a part of that song this really special to me: "God never moves without purpose or plan, when trying His servant or molding a man. Give thanks to the Lord though your testing seems long. In darkness, He giveth a song. O rejoice in the Lord, He makes no mistakes. He knoweth the end of each path that I take. For when I am tried and purified, I shall come forth as gold." It is very encouraging to know, and to be reminded, that God does not make mistakes and that He is in control.
I am so thankful for Hannah. She is the most beautiful girl to me. While she is special in that she has Down Syndrome, she is a gift from God to us. And because of that, we will do our very best to be the best parents that we can be to her. We have every intention of helping Hannah every way we can, so that she can grow up to be as 'normal' as possible. We have the help of family, friends, and a great church family to help us and to encourage us. We have received helpful information from many people we know, and several that we do not know. This has been a tremendous encouragement to us.
Through all of this, we still have some prayer requests.
For Hannah...please pray that her growth will continue to be as close to 'normal' as possible...pray for her upcoming hearing test...pray that her diagnosis would be on the mild side and not to the severe side
For Pam and me...please pray for grace, strength, and patience...please pray that we would have understanding, that we would continue to learn about Down Syndrome and how best to deal with it
For the boys...pray that they would understand that Hannah needs more attention because of the Down Syndrome, and that this means that we do not love them any less...pray that they would continue to be good to her and help her
Thank you for your prayers and your encouragement. They do not go unnoticed.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Remembering Ken Culver - 10 Years Later
A couple of years ago, I posted a blog regarding Ken Culver, one of my best friends. It has now been 10 years since a tragic accident took his life. It is truly hard to believe that 10 years have gone by since this accident occurred.
I will remember Ken for his zeal for life, his friendship, his newsletter, his joy of Univ. of Kansas basketball, and his odd attraction for Taco Bell restaurants. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to eat at my local Taco Bell with him. I pass that Taco Bell almost daily. Many times that I pass that establishment, I am reminded of Ken and his friendship.
I still have trouble understanding why Ken was taken from us at such a young age. I don't have an answer for that. I may never have an answer for that. However, I continually remind myself that God knows what He is doing, and He obviously had a purpose for taking Ken. What I do know is that someday in the future, I will be able to see Ken again in heaven, because I know that he is there.
I will remember Ken for his zeal for life, his friendship, his newsletter, his joy of Univ. of Kansas basketball, and his odd attraction for Taco Bell restaurants. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to eat at my local Taco Bell with him. I pass that Taco Bell almost daily. Many times that I pass that establishment, I am reminded of Ken and his friendship.
I still have trouble understanding why Ken was taken from us at such a young age. I don't have an answer for that. I may never have an answer for that. However, I continually remind myself that God knows what He is doing, and He obviously had a purpose for taking Ken. What I do know is that someday in the future, I will be able to see Ken again in heaven, because I know that he is there.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The upcoming elections and you - Some things to think about
The 2010 mid-term elections are less than two weeks away. To me, it is not “just another election.” It is much more than that. We have federal government spending that is out of control, and has been for some time now. We are having morals foisted upon us that we do not like. In Pennsylvania, we are getting rid of a governor that has no clue of anything that is going on in the state outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several state officials brought up on charges of corruption. It is time for change both on a national and a state level.
As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.
So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?
The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.
Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.
So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.
1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.
2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.
3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.
4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.
5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.
6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.
7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.
8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.
It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!
As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.
So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?
The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.
Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.
So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.
1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.
2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.
3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.
4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.
5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.
6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.
7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.
8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.
It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is this really freedom of religion?
In case you have not been paying attention to the news for the last several weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf plans to build an Islamic cultural center (i.e. Mosque) two blocks away from Ground Zero. As this news has gradually quieted, Rev. Terry Jones announced that he was going to have a Quran burning at his church in Florida. Now, the question I have through all of this is: Why are people bending over backwards to stand up for the rights of the mosque but not for the rights of the Pastor?
Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.
However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.
The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.
The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.
This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.
Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?
The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.
But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.
Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?
(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)
To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.
And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.
Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.
There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.
So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.
Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.
However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.
The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.
The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.
This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.
Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?
The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.
But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.
Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?
(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)
To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.
And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.
Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.
There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.
So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A Proud Global Climate Change Denier
I must admit, I am not much of a scientist. I was a decent science student in high school, but I did not choose to pursue anything in the field of science as my lifetime occupation. However, I have tried to follow the ongoing debate over climate change, because there are many people out there who are sounding the alarm over the demise of the earth.
Many of the so-called facts that the climate change proponents throw at us daily are not "the whole truth." They take information out of context and twist it to what they want it to say. This disturbs me greatly, but unfortunately we live in a society that does not see a problem with this. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 separate editorials that I read in the 7/28/10 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News. One of these articles is by the Patriot News Editorial Board, and the other was in an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.
The column by the Patriot News Editorial Board basically is telling the reader that "Climategate" is not a scandal. That even though e-mails were sent by scientists (to each other) talking about manipulating the data, that this does not disprove climate science as we have been told. We are told that no one tried to mislead the public. We are told that no one tried to delete information that could hurt the climate change cause. They then quote a British panel that said "E-mails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." So, if I understand this correctly, they were lying in their e-mails so as to create a diversion. I'm sorry, but this is not a viable explanation.
The column then goes on to say that "there is rigorous and healthy debate about how fast the planet is changing, and indeed a minority of scientists conclude the climate is not warming at all." They do not say that this is a growing minority who holds to this belief. But why would they? That would shoot down their argument. Also, there is not rigorous and healthy debate. Anytime that someone challenges them, they call names and take their ball and go home. They do not debate.
It all boils down to this - The Patriot News says that the answer is transparency. In other words, let people see what you are doing and all will be OK. I disagree with this conclusion. The answer is not in transparency - it is in the facts. You can only make up information for a certain length of time before people start to understand that you are not telling the truth.
The article by Paul Krugman only sent my blood pressure even higher. He is a socialist that thinks the President has not done enough to ruin our country. Our taxes are not high enough, we need more government stimulus, etc. He says that climate science points to an accelerated rise in global temperatures. He also states that the "Climategate" scandal is not a scandal at all. It was a plot by conservatives and big business to undermine climate legislation. While this is not the case, the legislation will definitely hurt our economy even more than we are hurting now.
According to Krugman, it was greed and cowardice that killed climate change legislation. According to Krugman, "Look at scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil or Koch Industries." Apparently, we are not to look at who is funding the climate change people, only those who are fighting against them.
He end his article with this tidbit - "Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price." Apparently, Krugman does not understand that people are no longer buying into this pseudo-science. He believes that government should force us to have something we do not want, something that will destroy the economy of this country.
So, after reading these 2 articles yesterday, I started to think about how to respond to this 'science.' Why is this issue so important to these people? Why are they pushing the government to mandate such draconian measures? What is the end-game? And how can we stop it?
The government is going to try to use this issue to tax us more and regulate business more. We cannot let this happen. It is up to us to go out and vote and elect people who are interested in the truth on this matter, not on the junk science.
Many of the so-called facts that the climate change proponents throw at us daily are not "the whole truth." They take information out of context and twist it to what they want it to say. This disturbs me greatly, but unfortunately we live in a society that does not see a problem with this. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 separate editorials that I read in the 7/28/10 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News. One of these articles is by the Patriot News Editorial Board, and the other was in an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.
The column by the Patriot News Editorial Board basically is telling the reader that "Climategate" is not a scandal. That even though e-mails were sent by scientists (to each other) talking about manipulating the data, that this does not disprove climate science as we have been told. We are told that no one tried to mislead the public. We are told that no one tried to delete information that could hurt the climate change cause. They then quote a British panel that said "E-mails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." So, if I understand this correctly, they were lying in their e-mails so as to create a diversion. I'm sorry, but this is not a viable explanation.
The column then goes on to say that "there is rigorous and healthy debate about how fast the planet is changing, and indeed a minority of scientists conclude the climate is not warming at all." They do not say that this is a growing minority who holds to this belief. But why would they? That would shoot down their argument. Also, there is not rigorous and healthy debate. Anytime that someone challenges them, they call names and take their ball and go home. They do not debate.
It all boils down to this - The Patriot News says that the answer is transparency. In other words, let people see what you are doing and all will be OK. I disagree with this conclusion. The answer is not in transparency - it is in the facts. You can only make up information for a certain length of time before people start to understand that you are not telling the truth.
The article by Paul Krugman only sent my blood pressure even higher. He is a socialist that thinks the President has not done enough to ruin our country. Our taxes are not high enough, we need more government stimulus, etc. He says that climate science points to an accelerated rise in global temperatures. He also states that the "Climategate" scandal is not a scandal at all. It was a plot by conservatives and big business to undermine climate legislation. While this is not the case, the legislation will definitely hurt our economy even more than we are hurting now.
According to Krugman, it was greed and cowardice that killed climate change legislation. According to Krugman, "Look at scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil or Koch Industries." Apparently, we are not to look at who is funding the climate change people, only those who are fighting against them.
He end his article with this tidbit - "Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price." Apparently, Krugman does not understand that people are no longer buying into this pseudo-science. He believes that government should force us to have something we do not want, something that will destroy the economy of this country.
So, after reading these 2 articles yesterday, I started to think about how to respond to this 'science.' Why is this issue so important to these people? Why are they pushing the government to mandate such draconian measures? What is the end-game? And how can we stop it?
- First and foremost, God is in control. He has created an earth that is extremely durable. For centuries, even millenia, the earth has withstood natural disasters, such as hurricanes and volcano eruptions (which emit more hazardous substances than man can create) and we are still here. God created an earth that is capable of sustaining life and 'healing itself.' To think that mere, mortal man has the ability to wipe out the earth is ludicrous. We know that the earth will survive, until God destroys it in the tribulation period. Until then, there is nothing we can do to destroy it.
- We should take care of our environment. That does not mean we should mistreat our environment. After all, we are stewards of the environment. God gave man dominion over nature. He did not tell us to surrender to it.
- Weather is cyclical. We have hot spells. We have cold spells. This was a particularly cold winter in PA. Now, the summer is warmer than the past several summers. Why is it so difficult to understand that weather cycles just like everything else? If you remember, this issue to be about global cooling. Then they changed their tune to global warming. Now, it is all about global climate change. This way, when any change in temperature happens, these buffoons can say that it is a result of climate change. This fits their template much better. If you call it global warming, then a cold spell does not fit the template. So they needed a broader title for their cause.
- Are we so arrogant to believe that we know what the correct temperature ought to be at all times? We have only kept records for the last hundred years or so. What about the centuries before that. Who kept the records then? It could very well have been hotter then, and we cooled off for a long time. Now we are getting back to those levels. We just don't know. The climate change people are trying to play God in decreeing that they know what the temperatures ought to be at all times and in all places.
The government is going to try to use this issue to tax us more and regulate business more. We cannot let this happen. It is up to us to go out and vote and elect people who are interested in the truth on this matter, not on the junk science.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
LeBron James, ESPN, and Pop Culture
I consider myself to be a sports fan, not just for one particular type of sport, but for many. I enjoy baseball and football, hockey and golf, NASCAR and soccer. You name the sport, I will probably watch it.
However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball. I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game. But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.
Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers. With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch. They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons. It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.
My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them. Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport. It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan. I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court. But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.
I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA. I did not like the style of basketball that was being played. The NBA turned into glorified street ball. It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch. And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.
The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's. Television ratings diminished. There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.
Then along came LeBron James. He was going to save the NBA. And he came out of high school with a bang. He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game. He is an extraordinary player. The networks love him. Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him. Yet, I could care less. He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.
Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years. And ESPN did as he asked. They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement. This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.
Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships. It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship. Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that. There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that. LeBron is motivated by money. He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals. If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.
I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday. There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time. The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James. ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special. LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires. But the world will go on.
This is one of the main problems with our society today. People care so much about things that just do not matter. If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events. Why is this? Because, as a society, we just don't care.
LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important. Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus. Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.
While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team. After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team. This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with. Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball? Will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans? Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf? Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things. Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?
However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball. I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game. But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.
Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers. With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch. They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons. It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.
My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them. Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport. It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan. I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court. But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.
I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA. I did not like the style of basketball that was being played. The NBA turned into glorified street ball. It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch. And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.
The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's. Television ratings diminished. There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.
Then along came LeBron James. He was going to save the NBA. And he came out of high school with a bang. He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game. He is an extraordinary player. The networks love him. Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him. Yet, I could care less. He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.
Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years. And ESPN did as he asked. They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement. This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.
Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships. It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship. Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that. There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that. LeBron is motivated by money. He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals. If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.
I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday. There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time. The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James. ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special. LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires. But the world will go on.
This is one of the main problems with our society today. People care so much about things that just do not matter. If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events. Why is this? Because, as a society, we just don't care.
LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important. Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus. Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.
While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team. After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team. This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with. Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball? Will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans? Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf? Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things. Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Vacation Bible School 2010
It's that time of year again - time for Vacation Bible School. Many churches have an annual VBS. However, I am partial to the VBS that is being held at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon. All children who are going into grades 1-6 are able and welcome to attend. VBS will be the week of July 12 - July 16, and it will be help from 9:00 am - Noon. We look forward to seeing you there.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What do the PA primary results tell us?
I always find it quite humorous to watch the political pundits try to explain election results. They fall over each other trying to explain why things happened the way they did. They attempt to give the Washington view of the results instead of the Main Street view of the results. These pundits have no clue as to what those of us on Main Street are thinking, and it shows. They dismiss Tea Party protesters as a fringe, right-wing minority, full of bigots and homophobes. They do not understand why we, as citizens, would vote out long-time Washington insiders and replace them with fresh faces who care more about the people they represent instead of the office that they serve in.
This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.
1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.
2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.
3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.
4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.
5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.
6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.
This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.
1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.
2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.
3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.
4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.
5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.
6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Am I missing something in the debate on illegal immigration?
As I have pondered the illegal immigration debate over the last couple of weeks, I cannot help but be confused about the stance that many pro-amnesty Americans are taking.
On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions). Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs. (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)
However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws. In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms. We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.
Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil? Am I missing something in all of this?
On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions). Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs. (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)
However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws. In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms. We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.
Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil? Am I missing something in all of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)