Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

• His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
• His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
• His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
• His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
• His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
• His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
• His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

My Beloved Son: A Christmas Drama

This coming Sunday, December 20, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be presenting a Christmas Drama titled My Beloved Son. This program will present the story of Christmas from the viewpoint of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. This drama will be presented at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, and 6:30 pm.

You are all invited to attend, and we would look forward to having you visit with us for this presentation of My Beloved Son. If you need directions, you can click here. I look forward to seeing you there.

Will Jon and Kate just go away?

"They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had."

I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.

Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.

I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.

What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.

Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.

Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?

Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.

And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.

So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.

Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."

It's Time To Get Rid of Salary Caps in Sports

Even before the Yankees won their 27th World Series a few weeks ago, the cries were coming out from all corners of the U.S. that the Yankees bought their way to another World Series title. Apparently, money buys championships, talent will not win them for you.

I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.

Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.

But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.

I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).

Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.

This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.

And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.

And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.

The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.

Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.

One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.

It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.

And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?

The Manifestation of Evil

Last Thursday, we were reminded again that an ideology exists in this world that teaches people to hate someone so much that it drives them to the kill others. Because of one person's hatred for Americans, thirteen people were gunned down and killed, with many more wounded. Because of one person's hatred, many families are now left longing for loved ones, taken mercilessly and prematurely from them. Because of one person's hatred, there are children without fathers or mothers, parents without daughters or sons, husbands and wives without spouses.

Of course, the shooter was shot, but he still lives. Part of me wishes that the shot that wounded him would have taken his life. It serves him right to have his life taken for what he did. Why does this man, full of rage and hate, get to live, while innocent people have to die because of his hatred? Why do things happen this way? It's only right for him to die for this. But vengeance is not ours to give. Vengeance ultimately belongs to God. But the government is able to punish him for what he did, and his punishment should be to the fullest extent of the law.

In looking at all of this, from a distance, I see a man full of rage and hatred. But I must ask why he is this way. What is it about his beliefs that drove him to commit such heinous acts? How could one person reach this far into the depths of depravity to hate people to this extent? Did his religion play a part in this act? Were there any indications that he was going to act in this extreme way? Why was nothing done to stop him?

When an abortion provider was shot and killed a few months ago, he was killed by someone full of hate and rage. But the left, and the media, declared that this man was a right-wing religious person, and they attempted to show some sort of moral equivalency between conservatives and this nut job. Yet, when a Muslim kills others around him, in the name of Allah, we are not supposed to question the motives and beliefs of their religion? This is considered bigoted?

We have seen many incidents of terrorism over the last 15 years, committed in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam, and we should not question the religion and what they are teaching? We are not supposed to profile, so as not to upset people of the Muslim religion? The last time I checked, it was not Americans, or Chinese, or Africans, or Europeans that committed these acts. It was Muslims. It was their extreme beliefs that drove them to commit these acts.

The left, and the media, would have us believe that we caused these terrorist acts because of something that we did. Somehow, maybe we mistreated them or hindered them in some way, thus driving them to commit acts of terrorism. Maybe they are George Bush's fault (after all, isn't he the cause of everything wrong in this world today?). However, let us remember that they attacked us during the Clinton Administration. They continue to attack us during the Obama Administration, even though everybody is supposed to worship and adore the current President. These people need to realize that this has nothing to do with who is in office. Terrorists don't care. They hate us because of who we are, not who our President is. It has everything to do with their hatred for anything that does not agree with their religion. This is what the Koran teaches.

We do, however, need to be careful, not to lump all Muslims into this extremist group. I do not believe that they all hold these views. In fact, I believe it is the minority of them that hold to these extremist views. But we cannot be too vigilant in guarding against these kind of attacks in the future. Rather than being mad at us, the law-abiding Muslims ought to direct their anger to the extremists of their religion who hold to these views and seek to destroy those who do not agree.

We should not take it on ourselves to combat terrorism by ourselves. If we go out and kill someone for the cause of ridding the world of terrorists and in the name of vigilante justice, then we are no better than they are. Our government exists to fight terrorism. Our military is fighting terrorists and extremists overseas so we do not need to fear them here.

And we can help them. Some may choose to volunteer for military service. Some may work for companies that act as support for the military. We may choose to donate to military causes or help with families whose loved ones are overseas serving our country. But one thing we can all do is pray for them. They are fighting a dangerous battle so that we do not have to face the enemy here. They deserve our respect. They deserve the honor due to them. They deserve our thanks. And they definitely deserve and merit our prayers. Let us not forget them.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

Over the past week or so, much has been made of a group of buyers making a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. The prominent name in this group is Rush Limbaugh. And now, the liberals are having a field day trying to discredit Rush and have the deal thrown out, even though there is no deal on the table at this time.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out and called Rush a racist, stating that he has no business being an owner in the NFL, especially since most of the players are black. They cite no evidence of racism. Rather, they only make a proclamation, knowing that just being called a racist is enough to harm anyone's reputation beyond imagination. I find this to be very ironic, coming from 2 of the most race-driven men in America today. These guys are an embarrassment to the human race.

Now, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts has come out against any Limbaugh ownership in the NFL. Why? I thought he ran a classy organization. I am not sure what kind of businessman makes this kind of decision based on no facts at all. The former coach of the Colts, Tony Dungy, has been on Rush's radio program to discuss the book that he wrote. This doesn't sound like a racist action to me. It does not sound divisive to me.

There are players out there who said that they would not play for a team owned by Limbaugh (I heard Chad Ochocinco say this, as if Rush would want this slacker on his team anyway). Well, good for them. I am sure that there are a lot of other players that would have no problem playing for Rush. He would have no problem getting good players on his team.

If Rush was a racist, why would he have Dungy on his program? Why would his chief call screener be black? Why would he even be interested in owning an NFL team, if the majority of players are black?

The man has a love for the NFL, as is quite apparent when you listen to his show. He is a Steelers fan, although I can't figure out why (Rooney is big-time Democrat who is now ambassador to Ireland, thanks to the President). And let's not forget the so-called Rooney rule, which wreaks of racism (as it does not guarantee that a job will go to the most qualified individual and it assumes that minorities cannot compete on a level playing field).

If Rush owned an NFL team, it would not be for the money that he would stand to make from it. It would be due to the fact that he likes football. He would buy a team because he wanted to win.

This whole thing has nothing to do with racism. The same people that are out there decrying divisiveness and discrimination now find themselves doing those exact same things in opposition to Limbaugh. Hypocrisy? You bet.

And where is the media? Are they reporting the facts? No, they are not. Rather, they are parroting the quotes that are attributed to Rush, but have been shown to be fabricated or taken extremely out of context.

As far as I am concerned, I think this would be good for the Rams and the NFL. Commsissioner Goodell - Don't be a coward and cave in to the hate-mongers. Don't buy into this. Prove to everyone that you have the moral courage to stand up to these haters and that you won't be bullied or strong-armed to make a bone-headed move for you and the league.

Also, the St. Louis Rams are a company. They should be able to sell to whoever they want. the league should have no say in this whatsoever. But since the NFL has a salary cap and revenue sharing, full-fledged socialism within the league is on its way. The Rams are not owned by the NFL or the other 31 owners, so the team is not theirs to sell.

When does education become indoctrination?

Over the past 20-30 years, we have had our attention drawn to many instances of indoctrination in our school systems across this country. Rather than teaching our children how to think, our public education system has decided that they need to teach our children what to think. This has caused many people to choose alternative methods for their childrens' schooling, whether it be private school, home school, or charter school.

We used to send kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those things don't matter now, because schools will automatically pass the students now. We now have teachers preaching ideologies in class. They are no longer teaching the basics that we send our kids to school to learn.

The latest example of this indoctrination comes from the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. This event reportedly happened towards the end of the 2008-09 school year. The children sang a song about President Obama, praising him for what he is doing to build up the American economy. In excerpts from the article:

• The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.
• The song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
• Among other lyrics, touting a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."

I understand the need to teach children to respect authority figures, including the President of the United States, regardless of whether or not you voted for him. However, when a school teaches your children a song about the man and has them sing it in front of others (while recording it for an eventual post on YouTube), then the school has gone beyond education. This is quite simply indoctrination. All this has done is teach the kids to basically worship the President. Apparently, he can do no wrong.

Let's ignore the fact that if the school did this for a Republican, the outcry would be enormous. Lets throw out the fact that many teachers in the public school system are liberal. These facts are quite obvious, so we do not need to touch on them.

In elementary school, children are easily led one way or another. The ability to think in such a critical way has not completely developed, although it is a work in progress. At this level, the parents should be the ones to help the child develop political ideologies, not the schools. In many cases, the schools are doing this in opposition to what the parents are teaching their children. Did the school try to notify parents that they were going to do this? What was the goal of this exercise?

Now, what would have happened if the school had asked the children to learn a song about Jesus and sing it in front of the school? I think we all know the answer to that.

Race and America

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.

But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?

To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.

It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.

But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.

The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.

Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.

Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.

And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.

The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.

During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.

Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.

Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.

Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.

I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.

9/11/09 - 8 Years Later

There have been instances over the last several decades that we can say were momentous occasions where we make mental notes of our location and situation at the time history was being made. Many people remember where they were when hearing that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Or where they were when President Kennedy was shot. Or where they were when they found out Elvis died. Or when John Lennon died. Or where they were when man landed on the moon, and then stepped foot on the lunar surface. Or where they were when they heard of the Space Shuttle Challenger blowing up after liftoff. Not that all of these moments can be considered momentous occasions in the life of mankind, but we remember them and the affect that they have on our lives.

I am too young to remember MLK Jr. or JFK being shot. Nor can I remember man landing on the moon, as I was not yet here on this earth. The deaths of Elvis and Lennon happened when I was young, and even looking back on them now, I do not see significance in them. I remember the Challenger blowing up. We did not have school that day due to snow, but I did not necessarily understand if this had any effect on me, or if it was just another news story.

There is one significant event in history, though, that sticks out in my mind. That is what happened on the morning of 9/11/01. I remember that work was really slow at that point, and we had mandatory furloughs that we were taking. I just happened to be off that week. I was sleeping in that day (my wife and I only had 1 child at that point, so it was easy to keep quiet in the house). When I woke up, I got on the phone and made a call to a credit card company that I had an ongoing dispute with. While I was on hold, instead of hearing the normal elevator music, I heard news. It sounded like NBC. They were talking about the World Trade Centers falling down.

I quickly turned on the television to see what was going on, and I tuned in to see the aftermath of the 2nd tower falling. I had to ask myself what was happening. Is this real? Or is it just a really bad dream? I asked my wife why she did not wake me up. Her answer was that I needed the extra sleep and she did not want to disturb me. While I appreciated the sentiment, I thought that this was worthy enough to wake me up.

Then there was news that a plane had flown into the Pentagon. Not too much later, we heard about a plane that crash landed in western Pennsylvania. We all wondered what was happening. Are we under attack? Was anything else going to be targeted that day? Who would do something this heinous and despicable? What had these Americans done to be targets of such actions?

While there was a very small minority of people at that time who came out and said that America deserved this (and were possibly even involved in this), the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that these actions were unprovoked and that whoever committed these acts must be found and brought to justice. These attacks were not against any one man or any one belief. They were attacks on the United States of America. They were cowardly attacks on innocent Americans who were going about the course of their daily lives. There was a tremendous unity of mind amongst almost all Americans that we needed to put political differences aside in order to fight a common enemy.

In the coming days and weeks we found out that these were attacks brought on by Al Qaida, which had funding and support from Osama Bin laden. The questions then came about what we can do to keep this from helping again. What steps can we take in order to keep people from perpetuating this same kind of cowardly attack on the American people again? What is the best way to keep Americans safe, especially on their own soil?

People had differing views on what is the best way to keep Americans safe, but the debate was vigorous, and the debate was good. Our government officials knew that if America could not be safe, then it would only be a matter of time before America was no longer free.

Over time, as the debate continued, fringe groups started to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind's of some Americans. How could the Bush Administration not have known that this was going to happen? Perhaps they were involved. Perhaps they were privy to the plan and decided to do nothing about it. Maybe they planted explosives in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to bring them down.

These ideas are preposterous. However, the longer they perpetuated these ideas, the more people started buying into these ideas. And over time, this idea that it was an 'inside job' was grown, maybe not to a majority of the American minds, but it still festers out there.

So, where are we now? How do we view the events that happened eight years ago? How do we honor the people who gave their lives on that day so that others could live? What are we doing so that these types events do not happen to us again?

First, we were attacked by Muslim extremists. We were not attacked by the Muslim religion. Rather, we were attacked by extremists who are members of that religion. It is a religion that clearly allows for this type of extremism and teaches that these actions will be rewarded in the afterlife. Today, however, by saying that these attacks were perpetuated by Muslim extremists, we are now said to be spreading hate against this 'great' religion. Well, the facts are the facts. We cannot change who attacked us. We cannot change or ignore who they were.

Second, they did not attack us because President Bush was the President. Nor did they attack the World Trade Centers in 1993 or the USS Cole because Bill Clinton was President. They attacked us because of who we were. They attacked us because we are Americans. They attacked us because we have freedom. They attacked us because we were free to worship however we please. They attacked us because they hated us for simply being Americans.

Third, we now have an administration that does not want to call this what it was: an act of terrorism. We have an administration that does not want to call our battle against these extremists a war on terror. They want to soften the language so as to show some goodwill to these extremists, as though this will help them understand that what they did was wrong. We have an administration that wants the American people to think that the real enemies are the conservatives in Congress, the insurance companies, talk radio, and Fox News. We have an administration that is more concerned about the global warming myth than they are about terrorists who are bent on destroying America. We have an administration the believes that America is the enemy, not the terrorists.

Fourth, we have lost our focus. Understandably, as we become more removed from an historic event, that event does not take the prominence that it once did. The administration is now touting 9/11 as a National Day of Service. Excuse me, but what in the world does this have to do with remembering what happened on that dreadful day? Why is the President trying to divert attention from what happened that day? I have nothing against service to others, but why choose 9/11 for this? The goal of this, in my opinion, is to remove the focus on fighting terrorists and the ideology that fuels them.

Fifth, the liberals in America are secular-progressive in their beliefs. They do not necessarily view things as right and wrong. Actions are relative in their minds. Many liberals view that what these terrorists did was justified because of America's greatness on the world scene and because of our support for the nation of Israel. They have tried to remove God from the public square and from any and all public discourse. They teach that we should be committed to the environment and community service, above all else. They teach that the government is the answer to all of our problems. In their minds, God is a figment of the imagination. Religion fills us with a false hope. Trust man, not God.

I am not saying that we should live our lives in continual fear of possible terrorism. We should continue with our lives as we always have done. However, we should be vigilant. We should be ready to stand up for America, to be proud of it, to proclaim to the world that America will not be beaten down by terrorists. We should be proud to live in the greatest country on earth, not ashamed of it. While we may not like our elected representatives and officials, we ought to be proud that we live in a country where we are free to vote for whoever we wish to vote for, without fear of intimidation and reprisal.

And on this 8th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln when he spoke at Gettysburg:

"...we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

We should pray for other's salvation, not for their damnation

I came across a news article online yesterday that really bugged me. It concerns a Pastor by the name of Steven Anderson. He pastors the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.

Recently, he preached a message titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." He told the congregation that he prays for the death of the President, and he encourages the congregants to do likewise. He would like for the President to be stricken with brain cancer and die in a fashion similar to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Anderson does say, however, that he does not condone killing. I am not sure how he can say that, though, as he prays for the President to die and go to hell.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that I do not approve of the way the President is leading our country, nor do I approve of his policies. However, to disagree with another person, including the President, is fine. This is one of the hallmarks of democracy - that we have the freedom to disagree with the President without fear of reprisal or retribution. I do not wish ill-will, pain, injury, or death on the President. I would like to see someone different in that office, but this change should come through the electoral process and not through imprecatory prayers.

First, a pastor has no business preaching messages such as this. The pulpit is a place to preach the Bible, not a place to make political statements. The pulpit is place where the Bible is preached to show us how to live. The pulpit is a place to preach messages based on Biblical principles, not messages based on one's personal, earthly feelings.

Second, messages preached in churches should be based on the Bible. How many Biblical principles is this man breaching by preaching in this manner? I am sure that there are many more, but here is a small list that I came up with.

1. Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. This passage tells us that God is in control. He knows what He is doing.
2. II Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is telling us here that He wants all to be saved from eternity in hell to spend eternity with Him in heaven. Not everyone will get saved, but that is the goal that we are to strive for. So to pray for someone to die and go to hell is in direct violation of Scripture.
3. Romans 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Again, God is in control and He has set the earthly government in place. As long as they are not asking us to do anything against God, we are to be subject to them.
4. I John 2:10-11 - He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. I think this one pretty much speaks for itself.
5. I John 3:15 - Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Can it get any more clear than this?

Unfortunately, this preacher does more to harm the cause of Christ than he does to help it out. It is people like this that hurt the witnessing opportunities of Christians. How is preaching this sort of message any different than preaching that sexual promiscuity is OK? How is it any different than preaching that stealing is permitted? or murder? or any other sin?

This man claims to be a Pastor. He is a leader, a shepherd. He should know these Bible passages. He should know that we are to pray for our leaders, that God would give them wisdom on how to lead this country, how to make wise decisions. He should know that anyone can be saved, regardless of the life they currently live.

While I was in college at Bob Jones University, Dr. Bob Jones III has a recurring statement in chapel to remind us of the plight of mankind should they choose not to accept Christ - "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." Someone dying and going to an eternity in hell is not something that should be cheered. This is something that we must address with others, regardless of who they are, so that they do not face a God-less eternity.

We should approach our elections seriously. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity to vote. Regardless of the outcome, we are to pray for those who are elected, whether or not we voted for them or agree with them. We are commanded to do this. They need our prayers. And while you are praying for them, remember to pray for their salvation. You never know what events may transpire that can lead to someone getting saved.