Fool me once

The saw goes:

Fool me once
Shame on you.
Fool me twice
Shame on me.

I had to think of it as I read this article from CNN today. The gist: painting 3-D blocks on the roadway will get motorists to slow down. The article includes this AP photo:

Now, I can see being startled by this the first time I came across it on the street, but I'd rival Nemo's friend Dory if I were startled by it the second, third and fourth time. You might fall for the "can of nuts" once, but when those coiled snakes spring from the can, the spoof is etched into your memory (and perhaps your shorts).

Does it say something about our government that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration thinks this will slow folks down beyond the first or second time across? After a week it becomes dirty paint in the street.

Who knows, there may be a few Dories out there who'd get a kick out of it every time they'd drive past.

Name the patriot

No, Tim, not that kind of Patriot.

I stumbled across the following paragraphs in a column about the SCOTUS ruling on the DC gun ban. See if you can figure out the penman:

Certain that God gave each of us the individual gift of life, and so very relieved that our founding fathers were prudent enough to write these self-evident truths down on paper for future reference, everybody I know needs no confirmation whatsoever that self defense, individual self defense is not only a God given right, but a moral imperative in the hearts and souls of good people everywhere.

Just as we wouldn't need confirmation that our choice of religion is indeed an individual right, or that we could possibly need a government permit to express our individual thoughts in speech, good Americans will continue to fight for the return of our sacred 2nd Amendment rights where someday soon we will not need a government issued license to keep and bear arms. After all, from the supreme court of common sense on the not so mean streets of America, everybody I know understands clearly that "keep" means one thing and one thing only: "It's mine and you can't have it". We know without question that "bear" can only mean, "Yes, I have it right here in my hands or within instant grasp", nothing more and nothing less. And dare I explain “shall not be infringed?" I hope not...

...Banning guns hasn't worked to deter crime or make communities safer, in fact just the opposite. All gun bans have ever accomplished is the creation of guaranteed victims. This has been supremely sad, wrong-headed and dangerous. Most of us cannot imagine the thought process by which bureaucrats and courts could force laws on good people rendering us disarmed and helpless, then turn around and send us the bill for their armed security.

It's not Pat Sajak, but the author's a pretty articulate guy nonetheless.

E'08: Jimmy Carter redux

A great column today in Townhall about Senator Obama's ability to speak the Christian language much as Jimmy Carter did in 1976 ("Carter, Obama, and the Evangelicals").

A few excerpts:

• Jimmy Carter, complete with born again professions, received 48% of the evangelical vote in November 1976 doing exactly what Barack Obama is doing today – talking the talk. The problem is that he never actually walked the walk.
• (Obama's) strategy is clear – talk selectively about elements of the Biblical message that resonate with everyone (help those hurting and in need – DUH), while ignoring other vital aspects of scripture – things like righteousness and that “minor” matter of individual salvation.
• Why is this kind of thing effective with people who should know better – those who profess to believe the Bible and follow Jesus? Well, the sad fact is that we are dealing with an often underestimated and ignorant illiteracy in many evangelical circles today. As more and more people find theology and doctrine dry and irrelevant, and matters of the soul, eternal life, and moral imperatives not nearly as important as SOCIAL ACTION, the situation is ripe to be exploited by someone with a message that sounds right.
• Social actions – good works, if you will – are taught in scripture to be by-products of personal renewal, redemption, and commitment to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” They are the fruit, not the root, of faith.

Let's keep our eyes and ears open, filtering what we see and hear through the full and entire counsel of God's perfect Word.

Who speaks for God?

I received this question here recently, but it's not the first time I've heard it. Most often, the question comes from non-Christians trying to back down Christians from their moral certainty. The Christian ends up associated with Falwell or Robertson* because these two men used the pulpits God gave them to expose moral bankruptcy where it touched the church and the community. The weapon? God's word.

To counter another man who has unsheathed God's word to an increasingly godless culture, some pastors have started a website titled "Dobson doesn't speak for us." Charming. If you'd like to go there, Google it.

Here's the rub: if Dr. Dobson does speak for God regarding particular issues, then these pastors defiantly stand opposed to God. Let's buy Enron. Let's vote for McGovern or Dole. Let's play for the Kansas City Royals. But don't get on the team opposed to God.

So who does speak for God?

I do.

The audacity! The arrogance! Typical pig-headed, closed-minded, soda-straw-visioned Christian. Yep, that's me.

But understand, this is my identity and for any who are reading this and know Jesus Christ as Savior, this is your identity, too.

• We are called ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20). The purpose of an abmassador? To represent his Leader in word and deed.
• When on trial, God will speak through the believer (Mark 13:11).
• We are to proclaim the praises of what He did in and through us (1 Peter 2:9).
• The Gospel will bring conviction (Matthew 24:14).
• We are to witness what we see and what we know (John 15:27, Acts 1:8).
• Our presence (the presence of the Holy Spirit within us) becomes the stench of death to the unsaved (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

Do I always speak for God? Well, no. When I act upon my own and contrary to His word, I become an unfaithful servant and an ambassador worthy of recall (thankfully He doesn't do that; He certainly does reassign, though).

When do I speak for God? When I proclaim His word truly. As Christians, we must know God's word for the time has come when many do not endure sound doctrine, and they heap up for themselves teachers to tickle their ears; they turn from truth and turn toward fables (2 Timothy 4:3-4). The Christian must know the truth so he is not deceived.

Peter declared, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). They are here. They are among us.

How do we know when the Christian is speaking for God? Like the Bereans in Acts 17 we compare the speaker's words with God's words. If we find consistency, winner! If not, as is the case with Senator Obama's voting record, we must expose the biblical inconsistency.

This will make you no friends. Good luck finding any with a liberal slant willing to discuss the issues from a biblical perspective. The platforms are untenable. This ought not dissuade us from applying God's word to the issues of the world and to pray that blindness will cease.

So now and with boldness the Christian must speak the truth of God's word in and to a people that is perishing.

Christians, speak on! And expect the spears to fly.

*I have found little to disagree with regarding the doctrine and teaching of Jerry Falwell. While I appreciate his outspokenness on moral issues, Pat Robertson tends to be far less careful with his biblical scholarship.

End of June

Thought you might like a "Twinkie" update.

The Minnesota Twins have won ten straight! Considering May was not a productive month (note the baseball silence during that time), the surge has returned them to the top of their division. Okay, not quite. They're a half game behind the where-were-they-last-season Chicago White Sox.

Just thought you'd like to know.

You really want change?

My boss had us all watch this at work today. Forgive the double double entendre at the beginning and in the title. The video is all words, words about how the world is changing and has changed regarding technology and information. That aside, it'll give you the shivers.

Much has changed since the days of Bobby Brady...

"Did You Know?" is the title (If Irish-sounding music comes up, you'll know you're in the right place. 6 minutes).

Toss me my frisbee...

Bunnies

A friend shared this with me today. He said his son Robert passed it on to him. He told me I would appreciate it.

Q: What do you call a row of rabbits marching backward?

A: A receding hare line!

Considering his follicular front line is in retreat moreso than mine, I asked him if he gave his son a stern look and said, "That's not funny."

E'08: Fruitcakes & Liars

James Dobson used "fruitcake" as an adjective to describe Barack Obama's interpretation of the Constitution and suggested the presidential front-runner distorted the Bible. Obama returned serve essentially calling Dobson a liar, that he was just "making stuff up."

What teed up the good doctor was a speech given by Obama to the religious group, "Call to Renewal." Here were the paragraphs that drew the primary focus (I'll include a link to the full speech at the end of the blog):

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Dr. Dobson's point: context is key. Obama missed the contextual boat by a mile. His admonition to "read our (B)ibles" is advice he would do well to follow to understand the purpose and place of the Levitical law or the Sermon on the Mount. His response to such statements:

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Did Dobson make things up? Or did he highlight the chasm between Obama's biblical rhetoric and his biblical application. Cal Thomas, in the week prior to this free-for-all, exposed Obama's walking, talking contradiction in this article.

Obama knows how to bandy religious words (Schaeffer anyone?). Such smooth speech, finally crafted and just slightly off target, puts him in with some unsavory biblical company. Here's the transcript for your study.

Dobson's vitriol has left him without a candidate. He's hammered both McCain and Obama for not upholding godly principles in their governance. For that, he has taken criticism from his friends and cursings from his foes. And still he speaks out.

Sounds a lot like a prophet (Jeremiah 1:17-19 and Jeremiah 8 through 10 for starters, and that guy ended up in the outhouse basement). No telling what treatment Dobson will receive as this saga unfolds. It doesn't matter. His reward is elsewhere.

But will anyone down here hear him?

Profit!

The gnashing of teeth has become deafening regarding the profits earned by any and everybody associated with petroleum (that would be the supply side, not the demand side).

Try this on for size. Assume for every dollar invested by a company, they received an $800 return on that investment. What can and should they do with that money? Largely, they would turn that $800 right around and reinvest it in the company. They would pay the workers, fix equipment, buy new equipment, try and figure out how to better produce that investment, etc., etc.

How would you feel if the "company" pocketed $100 of that for themselves? What if you knew that it was possible that the risk was very real that whatever money the company invested could be completely lost?

Folks have come to loathe petrol companies, but what folks don't understand is that the economic world that God created is NOT a zero-sum game. What I mean by that is just because Hank gets a dollar does not mean that you won't get a dollar, too, and possibly more!

Here's the deal. One ear of corn yields on average 800 kernels. Considering that only one ear of corn grows upon each stalk, that's a staggering 800 kernels that grow from only one, an 800% return on your investment!! I'm happy to be getting 10% on my IRA's!

Now be real, does the farmer pocket all that? No way. He eats some. He has to save a mess of it to plant for next year. And some of the return has to go to keeping the plow and combine running, purchasing fertilizer and maybe irrigation, and, and, and. You get the idea.

Who else benefits from the farmers 800 to 1 kernel investment? You and I who do not plant corn. We can boogie to the local supermarket and pick up some of the Green Giant's finest. If you are richly blessed in July and August by living in the heartland, you can go to the local farmer's market and buy some of the sweetest sweet corn on the planet.

So why aren't CNN, Barack Obama, Fox News, or John McCain railing upon the farmer for receiving an 800 to 1 return for each kernel planted? Because they have come to understand how God's economy works regarding corn (though they don't acknowledge the source of economics).

While the petrol problem does not directly correspond to corn, the economics still applies in many ways. Because the oil companies have so many dollars does not mean that any of us are being deprived of dollars. The fact is, we remain a people richly blessed.

Too much of a good thing

I love coffee. Not like some love coffee, but I do love coffee.

I can't say that I'm a coffee snob. I drink the swill made at work, and I'm an equal-opportunity swill-consuming aficionado.

At the same time, I love the experience brought on by a great cup of coffee. The rich, carmel candy smell, the deep umber color, and the taste of a good cup might make me swear off the swill if not for the absurd prices charged (really, if you compared it to gasoline, fossil fuel becomes a steal...but then I used to say that about milk, too, and gas has passed that drink in price). And best of all, a great cup of coffee is most often accompanied by great company.

Then I went to work on Thursday.

Something in my stomach, for the first time in over a decade, made coffee seem unpalatable that morning. I didn't even pour myself a cup. Friday either. It some seemed...yuk.

After I got home Friday evening from my motorcycle safety course, I felt gunky. I hoped I wasn't coming down with something considering I had two more days of that course. As the night wore on, I took some Motrin in hopes it was just a headache. Then, as I passed our coffee pot with a few ignored cups still in the bottom, the lightbulb went on in my throbbing melon. My body was coming to terms with the fact that I had robbed it of its caffeine fix two days in a row!!

Because of the course, I had coffee neither Saturday nor Sunday. Saturday I still suffered from my "hangover." Sunday I finally felt normal.

This morning, I had to go into work early. I had a particular task where on a normal day I would take a two-mug thermos. Today I took a styrofoam cup. It was the usual swill, but I enjoyed it.

God has given us all things to enjoy and to savor. They are part of His glorious creation. I have always taught my boys, "Everything in moderation," but their dad had become a coffee glutton. The Bible warns us from cover to cover about excess in any area. I wag my finger and look down my nose at the folks at CiCi's, but I was picking specks.

It amuses me that in some fashion by body rebelled against the beam in my eye. Will I change my ways? I hope so. A bit anyway. I sure didn't like how I felt Friday night. I sure hope that I will continue to enjoy the experience of a great cup of coffee especially since my sons bought me a "French press" for Father's Day.

Now, about those donuts...

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

Completely off topic, but I have to share this. Two days, two whole days, after publishing my blog "Send," I hit send. Same ugly mess. Same ugly lessons. Sad.

Just another day: The thermonuclear variety

Let's see. When Iraq started toying with "nuclear power plants," Israel sent in an air strike bringing a punctuated halt to Sadam's desire for atomic energy.

This calendar year, Syria had a similar venture interrupted by the Israeli Air Force.

Seems the tiny nation, a nation bordered by rabid jackals, has little patience for its neighbors developing the ability to drop "canned sunshine" into downtown Capernaum.

So when Iran began its bluster these past couple of years thanks to the always jolly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Israel began suggesting on the diplomatic front that that might not be such a good idea.

Ahmadinejad, like an undersized, sixth grade loudmouth backed down by the saner, more civil side of the sixth grade class, called in his bully big brother of the Russian variety, Alexander Putin. The bully big brother began shipping nuclear material to the elementary school. Uh-oh.

Earlier this week, our country, also one of the saner members of the sixth grade class, leaked that Israel executed an exercise of such magnitude that it was in fact strategizing about the termination of the Iranian wack-job's quest for the Big Heat, leaving Israel trying to figure out whose team we are on.

Analysis? This Breitbart headline sums it up nicely:

'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked

It does leave you wondering, though. Would Israel turn Iran into a ball of fire? Unlikely the pipsqueak could land a punch on its neighbor to the distant west. That would leave the bully big brother entering the fray and that's not out of the question either.

Keep your pages opened to Ezekiel 38 & 39 and stay tuned...

The heart of loneliness

Since Peter Jackson brought Tolkien's masterpiece to the big screen, we've been watching the movies once each year since they came out on DVD. For purists, yes, we've read the books, too.

The other night we concluded The Two Towers, since the old man can't sit for three and a half hours after the girls go to bed. Jackson's liberties in making the film are no place better invested than in the lines given to Bernard Hill, Theoden, King of Rohan.

Before the attack on Helm's Deep, Theoden receives his armor from his #2, Gamling, in one of the most superbly restrained scenes in Hollywood history. Rohan has retreated to this mountain keep, but the king knows full well that his 300 men cannot face the 10,000 demons that bear down upon his fortress. The following dialogue ensues, Theoden stalk still as Gamling dons his masters armor:

Theoden : "Who am I, Gamling ?"

Gamling : "You are our king, sire."

Theoden : "And do you trust your king ?"

Gamling : "Your men, my lord, will follow you to whatever end."

"Who am I, Gamling?" the king utters just above a whisper. They were words never meant to escape his lips, but the weight of the mountain pressed upon his soul and exuded the words through his teeth. The utter depth of loneliness experienced by those in leadership exploded from the king who stared without expression and without hope through the walls of Helm's Deep.

"Do you trust your king?" What leader wouldn't love to have a looking-glass into the hearts of his people? He gets no such comfort. His friends are few for he cannot play favorites, and as such, those few are outside and not intimate with his leadership struggles.

So the leader battles on, wrestling his own doubts, battling his own unseen army orcs, while his troops muster to go wherever he might lead them.

What leaders do you know? Your boss. Your president. Your pastor. What of the husbands and fathers? How about the single mom? You will be part of a rare encounter if, like Gamling, you get a glimpse into the heart and soul of Theoden King. Rare, indeed.

These folks carry responsibility most of us will never know. Whether or not we get that glimpse, God tells us plainly in numerous places to pray for those in authority over us. Make note in your Bible of your political leaders. Make note of your civic leaders. Make note of your spiritual leaders. Make note of your family's leaders. And pray for them.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

1 Timothy 2:1-2

Laying up short

Most of you know that Tiger Woods added another trophy to his already clogged mantelpiece, this one was his fourteenth major golf tournament second only to Jack Nicklaus' 18. And Tiger's only 32 years old.

For those of you who knew about his win, you'll likely finish this blog. For those of you who think Tiger Woods is a section of the San Diego Zoo, please hang with me.

During this tournament that lasted five full rounds plus one hole of sudden death (tourneys are four rounds), Tiger Woods walked the longest course in US Open history with a torn ACL (way bad knee injury). Despite surgery earlier this year, every time he he muscled his driver, he didn't much care where the ball went because he was doubled up in pain as lightning shot behind his patella.

And still he played. He played some of the most amazing golf in the history of the game.

Now, he's done for the season. More surgery. No promises for the future.

Here's the question: When you're coming off of knee surgery and the knee obviously isn't fixed, why don't you quit and try and save the knee? No doubt each torque-maximized swing further damaged that knee. We would call that "playing it safe." The golfer, rather than going for the green and risking a bunker, the water, or out of bounds, lays the ball up short.

Here's the answer: Playing it safe, laying up short, rarely wins the golf tournament. Much less 39 total and 14 majors...at 32.

Here's the deal: We, like Tiger, have no promise for tomorrow. Why would we not pour our heart and soul into that which stokes our furnace, that for which God has given us great passion and great love? So what if it blows our knee not just for tomorrow but for ever? Tiger has no promise that his knee will ever again get him in contention for a tournament much less a major.

We don't know when God's going to call us home. Until that time, grip it and rip it!

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

1 Corinthians 10:31

(Associated Press photograph)

Send

Got an e-mail at work today that nearly popped my sockets. An individual speaking on behalf of their boss sent a communication attempting to express displeasure at certain aspects of the quality of paperwork that has been produced of late. Problem was, the boss uses the written and spoken word like a surgeon's laser; this intern used the written word like herd of rogue elephants.

As I write this, I still wince to see what fallout will come.

But also as I write this, I think back to all the times when .00000097 seconds after hitting send, I wished that I hadn't.

E-mail and the blogosphere are extremely dangerous! They are easy. They require no thought...quite literally sometimes. We vomit our ideas or frustrations and hit send. We read and react. It is so easy to type "Well, oh yeah!" without giving a moments consideration to the friend who offered me, in love, an agonizing rebuke.

So, from one who has pert-near the fastest send button south of the Red River, let me offer up two cents worth of advice. When the passion (anger? rage?) bubbles within your belly as your fingers pound the keyboard, take a respite when you've concluded your message. Let sleep pass between the time you type and the time you send. You might find that the best place for your regurgitation is in cyber-oblivion.

You've gotta love the delete key. It's probably saved more friends than the send key.

A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.

Proverbs 19:11

Right on "queue?"

On our refrigerator door we keep a magnetized pad of paper to jot down our resupplies for the grocery store. Recently, we exhausted our Sam's-sized container of Q-tips, but my bride and I kept forgetting to put them on the list.

Last night when one of our son's came into our room to say good-night, we asked him if, when he went back to the kitchen, he would put Q-tips on the list.

He paused in our doorway, struggled with his homonyms, and asked, "How do you spell that?"

Ah, homeschooling! Sometimes we just overthink, don't we?

QotD: Happy Father's Day!

Not normally a fan of George Bernard Shaw, his quote highlights foundational and fundamental truth:

Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to the country and to mankind is to bring up a family.

E'08: Vogue

Madonna Louise Ciccone (not pictured here), known by most simply as Madonna, released a song titled "Vogue" in 1990. A testimony to the magazine of the same name, it spotlit the 8x10 glossy nature of Hollywood. All that mattered was what was "on the cover of a magazine." Gobs of glitz, but makeup can only cover so much.

Such has become our nation, I fear. If that is in fact the case, Barack Obama will dance like Fred Astaire into the White House. On the night of the final primaries, when Hillary Clinton was feeling the stake penetrate deep into the heart of her presidential run, Obama delivered a speech of conquest with lyrical panache. What he said was mostly drivel, but he said it so well, I nearly registered Democrat.

On the flip side, I flipped stations and saw John McCain trying to rally the masses with the grace of Boris Karloff. Trying. Blah, blah, blah...smile...smile bigger...blah, blah, blah...gesture... smile ... nod ...blah, blah, blah. Yikes. Take me back to Iola Kludt's 10th grade English class and there I found far greater enthusiasm and zeal from that schoolmarm than John McCain forced last week. What was his message? I don't remember.

Therein is the problem. Obama, with all of his baggage, will sachet into the Oval Office with a message no one will challenge, a message (see his voting record) that would make Cold War America cringe. McCain will stomp and thump into the history books as an also-ran (see "Bob Dole") with a message no one will hear.

It's all about giving "good face." Barack gives it. John, well, John tries. But this ain't T-ball. Despite the better message (note: not great message), the face prevails.

Pat Sajak has sworn off the talking heads of television recently and only assesses the candidates in the coming election through the printed media. His article is a refreshing look at one who seeks to scrape away the Maybelline to see the real deal.

He, sadly, will be a mere pixel within the 300 million pixel picture.

Just another day? Flag Day minus 1

And the clock ticks...

• Tim Russert - suddenly dead. A shock to the media; a shock to the nation. One of our country's very best journalists. The point in noting it here: no man knows his time. A co-worker asked me today if I thought a life-sentenced inmate found to be terminally ill should receive a special parole. First of all, I have issues with life sentences. Second, we are all "terminally ill." I told him, "No." The guy in the cell next door could suddenly die before the gent who learned he was terminally ill. He gets no parole. No man knows his time.
• Japanese earthquake - 7.0. Are these getting to be a yawner for you? Would it be zestier if it were Knoxville?
  
• Iowa underwater. Iowa?!? The state that comes to mind if states had the capacity for innocence would be Iowa. Maybe it's Radar O'Reilly. Second on the list would be Wyoming. Maybe it's Dick Cheney.
  
• In Zimbabwe, an opposition leader's wife was found brutally murdered by President Robert Mugabe's presiding regime. Nothing funny to be found in this one. Actually, nothing funny in any of these.
  

Only four items today. Only four. Be a praying people.

Can the pastor say that??

Can your pastor legally preach about homosexuality as sin? Is your church at risk for losing its tax-exempt status because it calls gluttony a sin? Will you find police in the pulpit for speaking against strip clubs, pornography or local casions?

What can you say and what can't you say in our country? The First Amendment provides us a great opportunity to speak the truth and to argue ideas in the public square. It does not allow us to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. It doesn't allow us to lie about somebody else (despite what the linked article below states). Really, this is one of the greatest gifts our Founding Father's gave to us.

But it's hated around the world.

You get a glimpse of that through what Mark Steyn is going through up north. That trial has birthed an article from Canada in the International Herald Tribune (it's subtitle: "the global edition of the New York Times." That says a lot.) titled "Hate speech or free speech? What much of the West bans is protected in U.S."

As you read the article, you can see why the clamps are coming down upon our nation (unjustifiably but they're squeezing nonetheless). Ironically, it is because of things like Freedom of Speech that Steyn wrote America Alone and Bill Bennett wrote America: The Last Best Hope (vol I & II). Freedoms are eroding around the world which is why we are so hated; we will not, as yet, permit such a thing in our land.

At the same time it's why foreign folks are busting down the doors to get in.

Will our free speech remain or will our pastors be arrested and our churches closed? Stay tuned...

Just another day? Flag Day minus 3

A cursory scan of the headlines today surfaced these:

• Free speech on trial in Canada for speaking about the spread of Islam
• The most heinous forms of pornography on trial trying to be declared "art" and worthy of free speech
• Tornadoes raze a Boy Scout camp in Iowa killing four
• Most of Iowa and Wisconsin are at flood stage (the radar tonight shows more rain is on the way)
  
• Stocks are swirling down the commode
• Oil prices are making the Saudis fatter than they already are
• Tomatoes are lethal
• Corn prices at record highs

Will any national leaders have the courage to call for national self-examination, repentance, and plea to God for mercy? Will you join me?

E'08: Indoctrination

In the era that we have grown up and especially the era in which our kids are growing up, we hear things over and over that we begin to believe are true. Some of these things we just accept; it's just the way it is. Some of these we've spoken of at length before, but I'll list a few here:

• Evolution as fact
• Homosexuality as just an alternative family
• TV news as a source for learning the truth about events
• Professors are objective

Here's the one I want to key in on tonight:

• We have to pay taxes

Well, yes, if we are going to have any form of government, taxation will have to pay for it. The really cool thing about our government is that it was established by the people who said, "We will pay for our government." Problem is, the things for which our Founding fathers believed the people would pay has grown at malignant proportions so now, we pay for things which are utterly absurd.

Two article give great clarity to this issue in this election season. The first is by John Stossel, investigative reporter, who exposes the bizarre nature of entitlements in our nation's budget. The second is by PhD economist Walter Williams who addresses the redistribution of wealth in our nation, taking money from one person and giving it to someone else who has done nothing to earn it. Here are his opening paragraphs (the second paragraph is a sobering doozy):

Let's do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You might say, "What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000 lives to end slavery!" To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.

The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.

Track to the link above to give you a better understanding of what's happening and what ought to be happening with our tax dollars.

Oh, Canada?

In my last blog, I excerpted Mark Steyn's most recent column. As I noted, Mark is an immigrant to the United States from Canada. Tragically, Mark is currently on trial in Canada for an article he had published in Maclean's, a Canadian weekly news magazine, titled "The future belongs to Islam." The article, like his book America Alone, discusses the large influx of Islamic immigrants into Canada and, like Europe, their need to accommodate growing Islamic pressures.

How was it received by our seemingly similar neighbor to the north? He's on trial for hate speech.

Rich Lowry, Steyn's editor at National Review, sums up what's happening north of the 49th parallel in his recent NRO article. We often think of Canada as our chillier sibling, similar in government but with differing affinities toward hockey. Not so. The Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia and the national Canadian Human Rights Commission convened in response to the Canadian Islamic Congress' displeasure with Steyn's piece.

Gulag's on the Canadian frontier? They're back in fashion in neo-Soviet Russia. Here are a few excerpts from Lowry's commentary in hope that you will be enticed you to spend five minutes and read the whole thing and then ten minutes to read Steyn's original article for Maclean's:

• The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense. In the normal course of things, that would mean speaking or writing to counter Steyn. Not in 21st-century Canada, where the old liberal rallying cry "I hate what you say, but will fight for your right to say it" no longer applies.
  
  The country is dotted with human-rights commissions. At first, they typically heard discrimination suits against businesses. But since that didn't create much work, the commissions branched out into policing "hate" speech. Initially, they targeted neo-Nazis; then religious figures for their condemnations of homosexuality; and now Maclean's and Steyn.

• The national commission has never found anyone innocent in 31 years. It is set up for classic Alice-in-Wonderland "verdict first, trial later" justice. Canada's Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." The language is so capacious and vague that to be accused is tantamount to being found guilty.
  
  Unlike in defamation law, truth is no defense, and there's no obligation to prove harm. One of the principal investigators of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was asked in a hearing what value he puts on freedom of speech in his work, and replied, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." Clearly.

• Free speech is a very clean, neutral concept — "Congress shall make no law ..." Once a government begins policing offensiveness, things get much murkier. It has to decide which groups are protected and which aren't — the "who/whom" of Lenin's power relations. So, even though there are plenty of fire-breathing imams in Canada, no one ever pesters them about their hatefulness.

It's not that far from Ottawa to Washington.

QotD: Canadian-style

Mark Steyn immigrated here from Canada. He is a polished journalist whose book, America Alone, ranks as one of my top reads in the last five years. In his recent column for National Review, he comments on Barack Obama's speech as the presumptive nominee of the democratic party.

Speaking personally, I don’t want to remake America. I’m an immigrant and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there’s nowhere for me to go — although presumably once he’s lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

Explaining a joke kills a joke, but if you didn't track with his comment about lowering the sea-levels, hunt down Obama's speech somewhere. It's a hoot. He continues a little later on:

Nothing in Obama’s resume suggests he’s the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only this week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” said the senator, in what’s becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn’t the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he’s known for 20 years. Yet at the same time as he’s being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama’s convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America’s enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly up and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that “this isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew.”

His conclusion seals the deal, but I'll leave that for you to read if interested.

Allowance

A friend asked my wife recently about allowances for kids. Having done it for nearly fifteen years, we're pretty familiar. There are many ways to skin this cat, but here's how we've done it.

First, we didn't tie the allowance to anything. It's one of those bennies of being in a family. At the same time, they have chores to do that also come with being part of the family. They do not get paid for them. Their allowance is not tied to those chores at all. If chores aren't done, they may suffer some form of discipline, but we do not touch the allowance.

If a child does want to earn more money, then they can do additional tasks above and beyond the chores (car washing is a good one...maybe they can just do the headlights when they're young). Pay for a job well done. If it isn't well done, then teach them how to do well. If they still don't do it well, pay them accordingly. They'll get the idea.

We began the venture when each of our kids was six years old. Any younger and their money comprehension skills just aren't there.

Second, we use their allowance to teach God's principles about money.

Principle #1: It's all God's. Psalm 24:1 states plainly, "The earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein." Our kids need to know right from the beginning that our money, all of it, is God's in the first place. Ultimately, what He has given us is stewardship over that money. We are merely caretakers of that which is God's.

Principle #2: Because it is God's, the first thing we do with our allowance is to honor God with it. This principle lies within the Levitical law and the bringing of the firstfruits or the first part of the harvest to God. The first part was the best; it's not the leftovers (Malachi 1:6-14).

Paul carried out this principle with the Corinthian church when he said, "On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:4). Heart attitude is important, too (see 2 Corinthians 9:6-8).

Here's how we fleshed this out: We purchased a plastic recipe card box that would fit small envelops in it. We labeled three envelops "#1-Offering," "#2-Saving," and "#3-Spending." Let's say you gave your child $6. Give it to them all in $1's so they can split it up easily. Show them to put that $1 into their offering envelop to be given to God the next Sunday. It's a mindset. The first part is always God's.

Let me say at this point that the amount you give for an allowance will vary from family to family. Really, the amount for a wee little one, unless they are spoiled rotten, will not matter; they'll simply be thrilled to be entrusted with money (initially, your supervision is imperative. They will feel entrusted, but you will still have ultimate authority).

Be consistent. My paycheck was the 1st & 15th of every month so that is when they got their allowance. Make it a ritual with them and sit down and divide the money.

Principle #3: Save! This really covers two points. One is delayed gratification. It's a principle that will ultimately save tons of money in adulthood by avoiding debt and its associated costs. The other principle is regarding the preparing for future needs, or in their case, wants (Proverbs 6:6-11).

Going back to the example of a $6 allowance, we already allocated $1 as an offering to God (lots of good teaching lessons from the Bible associated with this principle). Next, save to save, you are saving money for "long-term" savings. Long-term to a child might be three months, but this is money the child won't touch.

We had our kids use this money for big purchases. Back then it was a Gameboy (first version, yellow screen). But we would not let them get it when they had enough saved for it, we had them save half again as much. In other words, if it was a $50 purchase, we had them save $75 dollars. That way, they never left themselves on "E".

As with grown-ups, this, like our offering, is really a small fraction of our budget (for that is what we are teaching our kids), so we would have them put $2 from the $6 in the "#2-Savings" envelop.

We can also teach our kids about debt avoidance herein, too.

The final $3 goes into the final envelop, "#3-Spend." This is for your child to spend on what they would like. Without your guidance, it would be gone on your next foray through Wally-World, but you can teach them to hold on to it until there is something that they would truly like. Perhaps there might be a missionary come through your church and they want to take some of their "spending" money and give it to that cause. Perhaps they want to channel it into their "savings" envelop to get them closer to their Oakley sunglasses or BMW.

Teach them to discipline themselves with their "spending"money. Sometimes, it will be a good lesson to let them squander it. Other times, you would be wise to run interference for your child and say, "No," when they want to fritter away their few coins. But your the parent. That's why you get the big bucks!

Kind of a lengthy blog, but I know there are young families with young kids just getting to this point. We started when they were six and ended at sixteen or when they get their first job whichever occured first. Also, when they hit ten, we increased their allowance a bit.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, if you have some advice for young parents and allowances, please comment. Lots of good books and articles from Crown Financial Ministries and others in Christian finance. I've also found good advice from Kiplinger's Personal Financial Magazine.

Oh, and we didn't use Monopoly money.

I have come to the brink of utter ruin...

...in the midst of the whole assembly.

Proverbs 5:14

That proverb strikes like a hammer in the middle of a father's warning to his son about what would befall the man who became enticed by the adulterous woman. She had ensnared him.

Her feet go down to death;
her steps lead straight to the grave.

verse 5

Now, most men do not adulter their wives in the physical sense, but many adulter them nonetheless through inappropriate stares, flirtations, or involvement with pornography. Men struggle with this in the midst of the whole assembly (to include yours truly). Sadly, some do not struggle at all; they simply cave like a wave-smitten sand castle.

I heard it said once that five out of six men struggle with lust and the rest lie about it. This sin besets men because a) God created us to be struck through the eyes by a woman's beauty, and b) our pride prevents us from confessing that it is an issue in our lives. As such, in the midst of those who love us most, in the midst of those who would love to shoulder our load, we come to the brink of utter ruin.

My point in blogging this is not the lust. Certainly, that is a big issue that men need to man-up to, but the bigger problem can be tagged onto any sin. That bigger problem is b) above, the thing that prevents the restoration. We do not have the power to overcome sin on our own. Notice Paul's clash of the Titans in Romans 7. Only in our abiding in Christ can He change our hearts and change our ways. Abiding in Christ does not mean flying solo. It means living in non-stop relationship to Him and in loving obedience to what He says. That means:

• We confess (admit) our sins to one another (James 5:16)
• We pray for one another (same verse)
• We confess (admit) our sin to God (1 John 1:8-10) and accept His cleansing and forgiveness
  
• We flee from lust (1 Corinthians 6:18-20, 2 Timothy 2:22), not standing firm like we would in other battles (Ephesians 6:10-14)
• We live disciplined lives (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8)

All of this is done in love for and for the glory of the God who has rescued us from the outhouse basement.

To struggle in futile silence while bedecked in a sardonic mask will only leave us withered and less effective men in the work to which God has called us. Aren't any of us perfect; to most, the mask is obvious anyway. They just don't know what's happening underneath.

Let's chuck the clown mask, confess our sin, and let the healing come.

Aberrant

This morning on the Drudge Report, the e-news outlet assaulted its viewership with a profile nude picture of a young lady who has altered her anatomy. She "felt" herself to be a man and so had her breasts surgically removed and began taking testosterone. Hair began to grow on her face.

Below the waist her anatomy remained the same. Ultimately, she became pregnant. The headline on Drudge (and the headline being vaunted throughout the media)?

World's first pregnant 'man'--four weeks from birth!

I'm not including a link. It's not worth the travel. I will give kudos to Drudge, though, for at least putting man in quotations.

This is not a man! The woman was beautiful before she began to mangle her anatomy. What has happened? The song from Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, "Topsy-Turvy," applies here in spades.

With our society continuing to jettison its historical moral foundation, anything goes. Homosexuality? It's a constitutional right, don't you know. Polygamy? Who's to say that that style of parenting is any worse than two-parent families? Sexuality? It's fluid; just ask institutions of higher learning and US government offices that are now mandating gender and tolerance training.

The Christian who holds to "God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27) can anticipate greater and greater hostility from a society intolerant toward those who hold to the absolute, unchanging, inalterable word of God. To speak out against conduct contrary to God and His nature will soon invite punitive action by the state and society at large. Prison and lost jobs loom on our horizon.

In Canada, hate-crime legislation has already led to muscle being applied to the Christian community. Here is another doozy from north of the border (no, not Oklahoma) dealing with the dissolution of a Christian ministry that could not survive the storm. Europe is worse.

From an era where sexual aberration could not be found (the 50's and 60's) to today where it is the foundation upon which sitcoms and prime-time dramas are built, the tidal wave of no restrictions will bring our nation to its knees.

Cause for pause?

• The Secretary of Defense cuts the head off of the Air Force
• A marine reprimanded for using a Koran for target practice
  
• F-15's grounded for structural integrity
• A soldier reprimanded for giving out gospel coins
  
• A billion dollar B-2 bites the dust
  
• T-38's grounded for structural integrity

Things that make you say, "Hmmmm..."

photo by Sgt. Matthew C. Cooley

Just another day? June 5th

More tornadoes across the plain today. I know, old hat.

China's got more aftershocks. Only 5-point-something.

Then there's the big to-do in Seattle about lesbians kissing during a Mariners' game, but the to-do is over the "up tight" heteros who felt it necessary to complain to a ballpark employee. Yikes.

Then there was this little gem this afternoon. CNN's website ran this headline:

Video shows man hit by car, no one helping

The catch ran as follows. For those familiar with Francis Schaeffer's indictment of our era as one with only two values, personal peace and affluence, factor that in as you read what took place and note especially the police chief's blistering explanation:

A 78-year-old man is tossed like a rag doll by a hit-and-run driver and lies motionless on a busy city street as car after car goes by. Pedestrians gawk but do nothing. One driver stops briefly but then pulls back into traffic. The chilling scene -- captured by a surveillance camera -- prompted a police chief to lament: "We no longer have a moral compass."

I'm not surprised that I came across this declaration the day before yesterday...

You have wearied the LORD with your words;
Yet you say,

" In what way have we wearied Him?"
In that you say,

" Everyone who does evil
Is good in the sight of the LORD,
And He delights in them,"
Or, "Where is the God of justice?"

Malachi 2:17

E'08: And they're off!

"And so it begins."

Theoden King (actor Bernard Hill)

I think Hillary Clinton can scratch and claw all she would like to, but I believe the die has been cast. Nearly six full months before they tumble to the end of the table to see if we end up with craps.

As citizens of a free country, we get to vote come November. Many will squander that richest of privileges because they vote the surface and not the substance. To treat this privilege like the gravest of responsibilities it is, we should wisely plumb the depths of who these men are.

To that end, I will be offering up articles that I believe have objectively addressed a point regarding the two men before us.

The first article that impressed today came from the Wall Street Journal. It challenges us regarding the hard things we should be looking at within the depths of the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. You can read it right...about... here.

Well-honed and utilized

"Tool Time" invokes images of Tim Allen misusing and mishandling tools with hilarious abandon, and when the one craftsman in the room, Richard Karn ("Al Borland"), is asked if he wants to give it a try, he shakes his head and deadpans, "I don't think so, Tim."

On a sitcom, we laugh to see tools misused. In real life, we usually bleed.

We are the autonomous tools of God's creation. We function one of three ways. First, we can run the machine apart from the directions. You can consider this the dude that ends up in the ER or worse. In the end, these are those who have rejected God outright. They might get away with the rejection of the directions, but ultimately, their warranty will lapse. For eternity.

Second, we can follow the directions begrudgingly, always seeking ways to circumvent the directions thinking in the end that we know a better way to operate the machine. This is the one who truly knows their Savior, but when they see Him face to face, they will have the scars, not of service, but of selfishness.

Last of all, we can submit to the Master Craftsman. This is the One who made the tools and knows best how they are operated. He aches for us to let Him have His way in our lives, to wield us as He sees fit.

This lesson has been thrust in my face time and time again this past month. When that happens, I suspect it's a point I've been missing that I need to be getting. This linked article brought the lesson home in spades. Below the article within the reader's comments, notice the second comment, the one posted by "Cheryl D." That lady gets it.

I pray that I would.

The "Wright" question

Barack Obama has caught more flak than a B-29 over Ploesti over his association with Jeremiah Wright (I can't bring myself to use the title "Reverend" with such). If that wasn't bad enough, Father Michael Pfleger of a black, liberation-theology Catholic Church continued the stream of vitriol against America and sent the Illinois senator scrambling for media cover once again.

The onslaught could not be avoided. Obama finally jettisoned his membership in the church whose doctrines you by this time know full well. It is interesting to note that he resigned the membership not because of what Wright or Pfleger preached but because he did not want to be a further distraction to the church. He doesn't denounce the church or its doctrine at all.

While that's an eye-popper worthy of a post all by its lonesome, that's not my subject. Here's what's rattled my cage these these last three months: the media and most of America have accused these orators (they're not preachers) of bigotry and treason, of hate-speech and coddling terror. The one thing they've not been accused of, at least in print, is being heretical.

You see, media opinion is not the standard. Public opinion is another poor yardstick (lemmings, anyone?). What matters is the ultimate standard, the unchanging, inspired, inerrant Word of truth, the Bible. Are these gentlemen adhering to God's word. If they are (I actually typed that with a straight face), then God is pleased. If they aren't, then God is way distressed.

In post-Christian Americana, in the land of engorged tolerance, we have no viable reason to target Wright and Pfleger other than we don't like what they're saying. If God's word is true, unchanging and unalterable, then we can say with absolute clarity that these two men are fruit loops.

That's why Obama should have shunned them...20 years ago!!

Little green men revisited

A few weeks ago I posted about the Vatican's statement that the idea of little green men did not stand contrary to the Bible. I don't know if you've given it any thought, but the headlines of the last few days bring it back to light.

• "Life on Mars?" queried the headline on the Drudge Report in bigger font than I've ever seen.
• "In search of life," hailed FoxNews.
• Then there's the guy who had incontrovertible proof through a homemade video that aliens exist. I think the real alien was behind the camera.
  

What is the purpose of the Phoenix Mars Lander (PML), NASA's latest expedition? The headlines seem to think it's a search for Gazoo. A careful examination of the University of Arizona's goals along with NASA's objectives confirms that apart some other scientific inquiries about the Red Planet, the search is in fact for ET life.

Here we go again; so what?

I'll be right up front; the theory of biological life outside the boundaries of our earth gets tangled in some fundamental biblical principles. Here are some of the issues:

1. Exodus 20:8-11 declares that everything within the Creation was created during those first six days. As such, if alien life did exist, God created them at that time. Were life to come about by evolution, the odds of it occurring at all in the universe are as close to zero as you can get. It would be more absurd that hitting 1,000,000 consecutive slot machines. The fact that life is present here would not diminish the statistical impossibility of it being anywhere else.
   
2. Man's sin brought death and destruction into the cosmos (Romans 8:20-22). Death is not natural; it is a consequence of sin (this is why life evolving from non-life runs counter to the Bible). If alien life exists on a planet orbiting Seti Alpha 3, the decay of the creation would extend to their corner of the universe, too. They would have death imposed upon them unrighteously. Humanity was justly under condemnation for its own sin. It would have beeen unjust for God to punish Klingons who had done no wrong (Kitamer notwithstanding).
3. God the Son, Jesus Christ, was bodily raised. Christ was never un-incarnated. It is precisely because He was fully man that He could die as substitute for all mankind. Were the Wookies to defy God's law, how would God provide for their atonement?
4. Could what we perceive to be alien apparitions (something of which the Bible does not speak) really be spiritual apparitions (something of which the Bible does speak...at length)?

Can I know absolutely that there is no biological life outside our atmosphere? No, but it is as close to a statistical impossibility that you can get. Marry that with what the Bible says about man, death, God's justice, and Christ's atonement, I think we can dismiss the possibility of running into any Cardasian warbirds the next time we head out to Saturn.

Photo from starwars.com