Tea Party Culture War by Stephen Johnson

America stands at a crossroads: culturally, economically, and politically. Enter The Tea Party Movement, whose focus is primarily fiscal conservatism, government accountability, and reduced taxation.

Currently, America suffers from a clash of worldviews, but the issue is much deeper than politics; it is ultimately a spiritual battle between good and evil. For the sake of generations to come, we need to win this war. We need to take action to defend our beliefs. We need to take the right road.

My review:

I wasn't sure what to expect when I asked for this book to review. I consider myself a member of the Tea Party, and am a conservative voter, so I was hoping it was a positive portrayal of the Tea Party, and it is. The book is a lot more than that though.

The author crams a lot of information into this book. He goes back and talks about Karl Marx and his ideology and how they have tried to bring that into the US over the years, and other similar ideas, but they have never gotten very far because of the Christianized ideology of America.

Everyone should read this book. The author does a great job of showing what is at stake here in America, and how we need to elect not Democrats or Republicans, but true conservatives.

I enjoyed reading the book and I indeed learned a lot about both liberal and conservative ideas and agendas, and am more convinced than ever that we need real change in America.

About the author:

A long-time resident of California, author and economist, Steve Johnston, B.S.,
J.D., earned a Juris Doctorate degree from Western State University of Law and a Theological degree from Calvary Chapel School of Ministry. Mr. Johnston has over 20 years experience in prison ministry and Bible teaching, and has served as a chaplain in Orange County and Los Angeles jails as well as Pelican Bay, a California maximum security prison. The author of When Is Judgment Day? (Anomalos, 2008), Mr. Johnston describes his book, The Tea Party Culture War (WinePress, 2011) as a systematic manifesto of the Tea Party Movement. Mr. Johnston and his wife of 38 years divide their time between homes in Palm Desert, California and Brookings, Oregon. They have one adult daughter and one granddaughter.

Tea Party Culture War is available from Winepress Publishing.

Thanks to Winepress and Litfuse for the review copy.

The Fight of Our Lives by William Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

Want to know the dirty little secret in the war on terror? Some of us have already surrendered.



Since the dreadful events of 9/11, America has waged an international war on terrorism. But are we prepared to win, or are we practicing surrender? We have foiled dozens of terrorist attacks since then. But while the Fort Dix terrorists were stopped, an Islamist terrorist at Fort Hood unleashed hell on American servicemen. Despite Maj. Nidal Hasan’s shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he pulled the trigger, the official Pentagon report refused to mention Islam or use the word Muslim. And said the army chief of staff, “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.” As William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn show, for lack of clarity, conviction, and determination, America is on the verge of declaring preemptive cultural surrender in the war on terror. The Fight of Our Lives will reinvigorate the discussion and embolden those who wish to win the war on terror.

My review:This was a great and interesting book to read. The whole Muslim situation in the US worries and scares me, so I was very interested in this book.

The authors do not make a blanket statement that all Muslims are terrorists, but they do show how the Koran advocates violence and death for non-Muslims.

It is actually a sobering read. The authors show what extents our government goes to in trying to appease the Muslims and whitewash the threat from them, whether it be from radical Islam, or Islam in general.

There is a lot of information here, and it is obvious that they did their research. It shows. I found myself disgusted by the actions taken by even our own president to make the Muslims look good, and how hard he tries to avoid the terrorist label being attached to a Muslim.

This isn't just an expose' on the whitewashing of the Islamic terror threat against the USA. The authors also give ideas how we need to proceed with this threat.

They devote a chapter to the Fort Hood shooting. I learned some new things related to that shooting. How much was overlooked because the shooter was a Muslim and things like that. That chapter alone was enlightening enough to read the book for.

We are indeed at a war with Islam, and our government seems intent on losing that war. This book offers a really sobering look at where we are in this war, and it isn't promising. Yet the book is worthwhile reading and is a good wake-up call. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this subject.

About the authors:
Dr. William J. Bennett is one of America’s most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and educational issues. A Brooklyn native, Bill Bennett studied philosophy at Williams College (B.A.) and the University of Texas (Ph.D.) and earned a law degree from Harvard. Host of the top-ten nationally syndicated radio show Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, he is also the Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute. Former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-1985), and Secretary of Education (1985-1988), and first director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (1989-1990), Bennett is a regular contributor to CNN and has contributed to America’s leading newspapers, magazines, and television shows. He is the author and editor of seventeen books, two of which—The Book of Virtues and The Children’s Book of Virtues—rank among the most successful of the past decade. He, his wife Elayne, and their two sons, John and Joseph, live in Maryland.



Seth Leibsohn is a Fellow with the Claremont Institute; a frequent commentator and writer on both domestic and foreign policy issues; and a managing partner of Leibsohn and Associates, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm.



The Fight of Our Lives is available from Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for the review copy.

The case of Joel Northrup

Joel Northrup is a 16-year-old boy from Iowa. He is the son of a pastor, and is home-schooled. He also wrestles, and does quite well.

Last week, he was scheduled to wrestle in the first round of the Iowa state high school wrestling tournament. He didn't wrestle. He forfeited the match and his chance at the state title.  Why? In his own words: "As a matter of conscience and my faith,” he wrote in a statement, “I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."

The boy's father supported his decision: "We believe in the elevation and respect of women, and we don't think that wrestling a woman is the right thing to do. Body slamming and take downs -- full contact sport is not how to do that."

A lot of people are applauding the boy's decision. A lot are not. Even on an article on Focus on the Family's website, there are comments like this:

This one from a woman:

I come from the other side of the issue. I have a daughter who loves to wrestle. Being the only girl in a family of 3 brothers and all male extended family, she is very much a tom-boy. Don't get me wrong, she is totally female and knows how to be and act like a lady. That background is to share that she knows how to be rough with boys and take it -- knowing full well they can hurt her.
With that history, she wanted to wrestle. There are no all-girl wrestling teams in our area so she had to join the boys team. The only boy who would even practice with her was a boy that had been part of our family (I babysat him and his brother) since she was born. She ended up giving up something she loved because the boys wouldn't wrestle with her. Is she supposed to refrain from something because it's a "boys" sport?


This all took place before she hit puberty and high school, so hormones and curves were not an issue. I don't know if she would have continued with the sport after such time any way because she has slowed down on wrestling with her brothers or if she would have wanted to continue. We were never given the opportunity to find out. Not because she wasn't allowed to play but because the boys would not engage with her. She could hold her own in the matches, but never won because she did not get the practice she needed.

And this one from a man:


I'm with you, Brina. The boy and his father, I feel, are in the wrong for many reasons here.



First of all, they're NOT showing respect for the young lady by refusing to grapple with her. They're showing contempt for her abilities and hard work. She has made a choice to compete against young men, and knows what she is getting into...it's not like he's going to come up behind her in a dark alley and knock her in the head and steal her purse!


Secondly, it's a cop out to make this a sexual/morality issue. If the young man in question can't control his hormones for the length of a high school wrestling match, maybe some counseling is in order.


Finally, at the end of the day, I think this is a case of "I don't want to get whipped by a girl" cloaked under the guise of Christianity, making all of us Christ-followers appear childish and silly.


I have read similar comments on news sites, and to be honest - they tick me off. I firmly believe the young man did what he did out of moral and Christian convictions - not because he was afraid to get beat by a girl. And disrespecting a girl by refusing to wrestle her? You gotta be kidding! The girl's parents are the ones who are disrespecting her!!!

Let me be blunt: wrestling is a contact sport. The intent is to take down your opponent by any means necessary. There is a lot of grabbing, groping, etc going on while trying to do so. How and why would anyone want their daughter in that position with a boy? The possibility of her breasts being grabbed by a boy, her butt or private area, her face ending up in the boy's crotch or butt? Is that really appropriate?!

When and how did we get to the place that this is condoned, and we ridicule a young man with the integrity, honesty, and courage to back away from doing that? Instead of cheering him on, applauding him, we make fun of him, claim he is disrespecting the girl, and that he is afraid of being beat by a girl. Really? How about questioning why a girl should wrestle in the first place with other girls, much less boys? And why a parent would be willing to place their daughter in that position, all for the sake of winning. Winning what? A trophy? The young man is the winner here.

Which would you rather have marry into your family: a young woman who wrestles boys and puts her body in the position to have done what I mentioned, or the young man who values women so much, and sticks to his religious convictions so much, that he is willing to forfeit his chance at winning a title to do so? I would pick the young man. He sounds like a guy I'd want my nieces to date.

And speaking of nieces... my three would never wrestle - they are young ladies, after all, but if they did, and if their parents allowed them to wrestle boys - which they would not - I would have something to say about that - so where are the people condemning the girl and her parents?

My hat is off to Joel Northrup - and his parents, for raising such a courageous young man with integrity. I wish there were more like him.

Free speech....... or something that needs to be stopped?

I was surprised recently to find out that not everyone is familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church. They shouldn't even be called a church. They are mostly all family, related to the pastor, Fred Phelps. They love to go around spreading hate, picketing at the funerals of soldiers with signs saying things like "thank God for dead soldiers", "God hates fags", "God hates America", and other similar signs.

This same group of hateful individuals are planning on picketing at the funerals of the Arizona shooting victims... including the 9-year-old girl. A law was just passed to ban picketing within 1000 feet of a funeral. Many applaud this decision, while others worry about our free speech... and with good reason.

Should they be allowed to picket at funerals? It is sick, wrong, makes Christians look bad...... but if we stop that, what is the next step? The liberals make no secret of the fact that they want to limit free speech - which amounts to shutting conservatives up. They don't care about hateful speech from the left.

Anyone should recoil at the idea of people holding hateful signs at any funeral, much less those of a soldier or a 9-year-old girl. Imagine coming out of the funeral home and/or burial site to see signs rejoicing at your son or daughter's death. No wonder the father of a fallen soldier is trying to sue the church for doing so at his son's funeral.

But what about free speech? Outside of threatening a president - especially the socialist idiot we have right now - it seems we have free rein to say anything - though any anti-gay or anti-Muslim speech is trying to be curbed - but should any of it be curbed? Should we be allowed to say whatever we want to say? Picket at funerals?

Are there alternatives to banning picketing at funerals? There have been some. The last couple of times that this group of people have tried picketing, counter protestors have shown up ion droves to block their view and the view of the bereaved from seeing them. At one, a group of motorcyclists showed up and revved their engines to drown the hateful people out. The tires of the hatemongers were flattened and no on in the town would help them get fixed.

Most of us would change our minds about things we believe if we were in certain situations. Not for the death penalty? If your child was abducted, raped, and killed... you would be. And there are other scenarios. Come out of a funeral where your loved one was buried and see signs rejoicing over the fact - you'd be all for bannning picketing at funerals.

I see it from both sides. The dangers of limiting free speech, and the desire to see these people pushed back as far as possible from these actions. Yet, I am all for allowing protestors at baby killing factories (aka abortion clinics) - and there is no comparison between the two, but there are those who want that stopped - and that is limiting free speech.

I guess what it boils down to, is perspective. If it is something we agree with - protesting at baby killing factories -  we want our free speech rights. If we disagree - these idiots who protest at funerals - we want free speech curbed in that situation. But we can't have it both ways.

So I remain on the fence. On one hand, I want these hateful people blocked from their horrible actions, but on the other.... I worry about limiting free speech. Yes, even of these horrible people. If we start there, we have no way of knowing where it will stop.

Meanwhile, cheers to anyone dedicated to show up and block these people. Keep up the good work, and go ahead and flatten their tires.

Muslims & Liberals

If you pay any attention to the news, it has become glaringly obvious that the liberal media and the Democrats bend overboard to paint Muslims in the best possible light. Just are a few examples of many:

The Fort Hood shooting - the media and Democrats insist on painting tha shooter's actions as post tramautic war syndrome and many in the media refused to call him a Muslim for the longest time.

The Time Square bomber - some in the media actually voiced concern that people would hear the man's name and immediately assume he was a Muslim terrorist - which he was.

And more recently, the Ground Zero Mosque - the same liberals who fight against our religious freedoms are suddenly worried about the freedom of Muslims concering their right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. The Associated Press gas gone so far as to issue a memo to their reporters to avoid the words "ground zero" when talking about the story. Nancy Pelosi is calling for investigations into anyone who oppose the mosque being built there.

Yet this same media and these same Democrats try as hard as they can to pin any kind of attack on a Christian or conservative, and seem to delight when they can.

Many may disagree with me, but I have read a lot, heard a lot, and I believe most Muslims want us dead. They want to take over the USA, and if things keep going the way they are going, the day could very well come that we are forced to become a Muslim or die. Not here in America? It could happen. We have a pro-Muslim president, and the media and Democrats are all pro-Muslim - so yes, it could happen.

My reason for this post is to ask what I think is a really good question. First off, keep in mind how the Muslims treat their women. Not too great. The women have no rights. Second, how the Muslims treat gay people - they kill them. Now put that up against the Democrat/liberal view of women's and gay rights - thet fight for them - ferociously. So here is the million dollar question:

Why do the liberals fight so hard to defend Muslims and paint them in the best light when the Muslims are so anti-woman and anti-gay - 2 things that are so important and big to the liberals? Do they not realize if the US became Muslim that they won't be fighing for gay marriage - the gays will be executed right and left - and Nancy will not be Speaker of the House, she will be wearing a burqua and be treated like a slave? So why fight for this religion with so much intensity?!

I was talking to my friend Steven about this, and his theory is that they hate Christianity so much, that they embrace anything that is anti-Christian, or the opposite of...... that could be, but still... what about the women and gays?

Any thoughts on this?

The Problem With Priests.......and My Solution

 It is in the headlines again. Catholic priests molesting kids again. I'm not anti-Cathlolic, though I really don't get some of their beliefs. Such as, why do they pray to saints when we can go straight to God? Peter the first pope - where is the evidence for that? And burying a statue of St Joseph so your house will sell?

But I digress.

Who knows how many priests have molested kids over the years. I'm sure we are hearing about just the tip of the iceberg.

I have a solution, and a question: Let them marry. Where on earth did the Catholics get the idea that priests couldn't marry anyway?! Check out I Timothy 3 sometime. It lists requirements for bishops and deacons. Most people agree it applies to pastors nowadays - and priests. And guess what.... it doesn't forbid marriage. It does state they should be the husband of one wife.

I'm single - and I have my reasons - but even I know God is very pro-marriage and pro-family. He encourages people to marry and have children.

Not every man or woman who is single is going to molest kids. I'm single, and the very idea nauseates me and I think they need stronger punishment for people who do it. For men, maybe removing a certain part of their anatomy.........

That said, I'm sure in some people, the desire for sex is greater, and if there is no outlet, that could explain how the priests end up doing that - and no, I am not excusing it. There is never a good excuse or reason for molesting or hurting young children. But, anyone with common sense has to see there is a connection. Men not allowed to marry and expected to be celibate, who just by chance end up molesting kids. And yes, there are lot of married men who do it too, but I really believe the Catholic church has set themselves up for these scandals by not allowing their priests to marry. It is un-Biblical, and is causing them problems.

I firmly believe if they allowed their priests to marry, it would cut way down on the molestation issue, but that is just my humble opinion. What do you think?

A day that will live in infamy

Note: This is a political post, and if you support Barrack Obama and the healthcare, you may not want to read any further.

I'm ticked. Furious. Sure, we need healthcare, but this travesty of a bill that was shoved through is not what we needed. A few problems I have with it, not in any particular order:

#1 we will be forced to pay for it, whether we want it or not. If we don't, or can't afford to, we will get a stiff fine.

#2 it gives the government too much more control into our private lives - which I for one, do not want

#3 regardless of Obama's executive order saying otherwise, it will fund abortions - it is in the bill, and his executive order cannot change law - and no, I didn't come up with that idea

#4 there was so much bribery, buying of votes, threats, and who knows what else, to get this bill through, it is pathetic

#5 Obama promised total transparency, that this bill would be posted 3 days before he voted on it for people to read - all lies, a big pack of lies

#6 This bill will most likely put private insurance companies out of business - something Obama said in 2007 that he wanted to do - they have him on video saying so - look it up

#7 this could very likely hurt churches and Christian schools, and other small businesses - everyone is going to have to buy insurance - and what about people like me, barely keeping my head above water with a part-time job?

#8 several people, and they are smarter and more knowledgeable than I - believe that this bill is unconsitituional - that the consitutution would forbid the government from forcing all Americans to buy health insurance - but Obama seems to be able to do anything he wants regardless

#9 This is going to raise taxes and hurt everyone in the long run

#10 We have to start paying now, but nothing will kick in til 2012 or 13 - can you imagine if Blue Cross and Blue Shield tried that? Have you start paying for coverage now, but it wouldn't kick in for 2-3 years? The government would shut them down in a hurry! But since Obama wants to do it, all is ok.

#11 I feel my rights are being trampled on and being ignored. I called and emailed my representative and senator, repeatedly. The majority of Americans were against this, but none of that mattered.

As I sit here in disgust, furious with our government and the man who unfortunately sits in the Oval Office, I find myself wondering if it does any good. Does it do any good to pray about this stuff? To stand up for our rights? Or is God just sitting idly by letting evil take over this country? But then my mind goes to one of my favorite Scripture passages, II Chronicles 7:14: if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I think Christians need to band together and pray that somehow this travesty of a bill is somehow proven unconstitutional and thrown out.

In Justice by Alan Sears

(Note: This is a "free book review", meaning the book was not sent to me to review, but is one I purchased, and was so impressed by it, decided to review it anyway. Also, this is NOT a giveaway.)

America’s first and most important freedom is on life support.

Three friends say good-bye after graduation from Princeton. Each is bound by high ideals and a resolute ambition to change the world . . . but unable to anticipate the dramatic events that will bring them back together.

Each Sunday Pastor Pat Preston stands behind the pulpit of his Nashville megachurch, hoping to change the world by proclaiming biblical truth.

Newly appointed U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Knox Smith is out to change the world one arrest at a time. He is determined to mandate equality and wipe out intolerance by criminalizing hate speech. And he will prosecute anyone who discriminates against the new legal classes of people he has helped create . . . even Pat Preston.

Standing between them is their friend Matt Branson, who now works in the Justice Department.

Aided by the Alliance, a legal organization dedicated to defending religious freedom, Pastor Pat fights to hold onto his faith, his family—and his mind.

Can Pastor Pat and religious freedom survive this frightening world John Knox Smith is working to create?

This was a fantastic, yet scary book. Though fictional, it is a all-too believable scenario of what could happen right here in our free USA if liberals and organizations like the ACLU keep pushing their agenda of hate speech and try to do away with our freedom of speech.

In the book, which IS fiction, that is exactly what happens. Preachers are hauled off to jail. Christian broadcasts are taken off the air, Christian organizations are shut down, and properties belonging to people guilty of hate speech suddenly become the property of the US government. Some churches and pastors give in, and preach a watered down Gospel that would offend no one, instead of facing fines and imprisonment.

What made the story all the more believable and scary for me are the credentials of the author. He isn't some random author who knows nothing about these things, but is the CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund,a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. A group of people who are out there fighting for the freedoms of Christians across this land.

This book reminded me of how important it is for Christians to vote, and to vote people in who will preserve our freedoms, not destroy them.

My one complaint about the book is minor: the story doesn't really end, but leaves the reader hanging and awaiting for the sequel: In Justice - America On Trial.

About the author:

Alan Sears is the President, CEO , and General Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the largest religious liberty legal alliance in America (www.telladf.org). He has served in private law practice and in numerous positions within the United States Government, including the Department of Justice, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Section, as Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography; and as Associate Solicitor in the Department of the Interior. Alan has coauthored several books, including The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, and The ACLU vs. America, both with Craig Osten.

In Justice is avaiable from Winepress Publishing.

Going green for Jesus........ A Green Rant

I will admit it. Be offended if you want, but I think the whole global warming thing is a fraud. Oh that's right, now that everyone is getting snow and cold temps, it is now called "climate change." Yeah, whatever. We had climate change when I was a kid. We called it summer, winter, spring, and fall. Huh, imagine that!

I about flipped my lid tonight. I was looking at a sales flyer that came in the mail from Family Christian stores. Towards the back, were the new VBS kits for the coming year. One of them, and I kid you not - is called "Going Green for Jesus." I about choked. Who wants their kid to go to VBS and get more of the political junk that is being shoved down our throats on a daily basis? I sure wouldn't want that.

There are 30,000 scientists who have examined global warming/climate change, and disagree with Al Gore and his followers. They agree that yes, there may be some climate change, but nothing to worry about, and nothing man-caused. But the other side is intent on ignoring and shutting up any debate. Any time someone who disagrees with Al Gore asks him a question, they are shut up and hauled away. He can't handle debate.

And something else that gets me, all of the big proponents of Global Warming are hypocrites. If Al Gore was so worried, he'd sell his sprawling energy-using house and his gas guzzling limo and cut down - but no, just we, the common man is supposed to do it. John Travolta, another G.W. hypocrite, has 4 jets. Yeah - 4. What does one person need with 4 jets? And what about global warming and his 4 jets?!

I have been seeing some of this "going green" stuff creeping into the Christian market. Guideposts magazine, which I don't really consider all that "Christian" was on the green kick for a while, and now some books are being marketed by Christian publishers. And now we have a VBS kit about going green. Excuse me while I go throw up.

I admit we shouldn't just trash the earth, and it doesn't hurt to recycle and do a few things like that, but get real - this earth is going to be around as long as God wants it to be, and then it is going to be destroyed by fire - and what do you wanna bet Al Gore will be there blaming it on global warming?!

I refuse to buy the reusable bags at stores. I want real bags. Paper or plastic. Paper can be used to wrap packages you mail, and the plastic make great garbage bags - see I do so recycle!

Our president has been over in Copenhagen promising that we are going to cut green house emissions and all that. If he does, it isn't going to help global warming - it will raise energy costs and cost jobs.

There may be some climate change, but I am one of the biggest skeptics. What do you think? And if my church uses the "going green for Jesus" VBS, I will be looking for a new church!

Link to VBS kit: http://ministry-to-children.com/cokesbury-vbs-2010/#comment-11625

We Have It Backwards

I have had my fill of Kennedy coverage. Even the conservative news sites I visit seemed to be 99% coverage of Edward Kennedy's home going. Some of the people who are viewed as conservative, had much to say about what a great man he was. They talked of his "legacy." Just what kind of legacy did he leave behind? This "great" man?

I got an email that outlined what kind of man he was. I knew some of this, but this is the kind of man the world lauds and spends hours of coverage honoring:


1.) He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it.
He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate
to cheat for him.


2.) While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea , where a war was raging. No preferential
treatment for him! (like he charged that President Bush received).


3.) Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private!


4.) While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark.. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing!


5.) In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash and
hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we?


6.) On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.


7.) He swam to shore and walked back to the party passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the . According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew - that he was required by law to immediately report the to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying Kopechne had scratched at the
upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car.
The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family before an could be conducted.
Further details are uncertain, but after the Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an , and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.... a "token of friendship"?


8.) Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors, and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S.
immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for
immigrants from third world countries..


9.) Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the pious grilling he gave the last two Supreme Court nominees, as if he was the standard bearer for the nation in matters of ³what¹s right². What a pompous ass!


10.) He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud,
boisterous, and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a better
description than "great American". "A in every pond" is his motto.

Doesn't sound like the kind of man that deserves all of this adulation to me. Not mentioned above, he was 100% pro-abortion - and no person who is an actual Christian would champion that cause - and pro-gay. He was for everything Christians and conservatives are against.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem there was this much adulation and coverage when Reagan died, who truly was a great man.

We do have it backwards in this country, and worldwide. Much is made of the deaths of corrupt individuals like Kennedy and Michael Jackson, while countless good people are dying, and no one notices.

I am reminded of the story of a missionary who was returning by ship to America after a life on the mission field. A famous individual was also arriving on the same ship, and crowds of people had turned out to see that person home. No one was there to welcome the missionary. He was feeling rather badly about it, and his wife pointed out that he wasn't home yet. How true.

These wicked individuals like Jackson and Kennedy are going to get their best home going here. For the Christian, no matter how inconspicuous or lowly, if we are faithful, will get a homecoming that is truly out of this world, when we arrive in Heaven. The welcome we receive there will make the homecoming of Kennedy seem like child's play in comparison.

And a note in closing, I know it is entirely possible for anyone to ask God for forgiveness at the very end of life, and be granted it, as God is merciful, but often the way men live, is the way they die.

The Christian John Grisham, and The Stoning of Soraya M

I've been reading about a new movie about to come out called "The Stoning of Soraya M". Based on a true story. "the true story of a woman in a remote Iranian village, in the years after the 1979 Khomeini revolution, who is falsely accused of adultery and stoned to death by a mob desperate to cleanse themselves of this affront to their collective honor and to their religion. It’s not only a gripping story in its own right, but it shines a harsh spotlight on the almost unimaginable reality that the barbaric punishment of stoning still exists in the Iranian law code, despite a largely nominal 2002 moratorium, the result of pressure from Western human rights groups."


Interestingly enough, there have been some attempts to whitewash Islam and one supposed religious expert is claiming that there is no such thing as "Sharia Law". (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-tapson/2009/06/26/daily-beast-contributor-aslan-no-such-thing-sharia-law) Also, the New York Times and Washington Post seem to detest the movie, I guess because it may look Muslims bad. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/06/27/anti-stoning-filmmakers-bashed-inflating-9-11-crucifixion-jesus)


There seems to be a move on this country to try to demonize Christians, and make Islam look good. Yeah, the same religion who keeps trying to blow us up and hates our guts. There was even an attempt by some Muslims recently to bomb some place in the Bronx (I think it was there). Oddly enough, most news networks didn't identify them as Muslim. Wonder if they had been evangelical Christians if they would have? I'd say so.

Anyway, this movie looks good, and if I were a movie going person, I'd go see it. So if you are, go see it. :-)

With as many books as I read, I rarely read a book twice. I do have a weird habit of re-reading the endings of good books, and random parts of the book that I really enjoyed. Anyway, I was bored today, so I started looking through my boxes of books I recently bought for a dollar a box at the yard sale. I was tossing anything looking remotely interesting and even threw in some books I already have, and that is the case with the one I read today. Directed Verdict, by Randy Singer. Awesome book. He is like a Christian John Grisham. Clean books, Christian content, often Christianity playing a part in the court trials, no cursing. And I don't think he goes campaigning for pro-abortion presidential candidates either, unlike John Grisham.

I was amazed at how little of the book I remembered. I had no clue what was coming. After I was done, I looked at the publication date, and it is 2002, and I read it when it first came out, so I guess in seven years I would forget most of what I read.

Anyway, if you like John Grisham type books, check this author out. I will even loan any of his books I have that aren't in storage. Which is two.

Ah, while I am at it, may as well give a brief description of the book:

Charles & Sara Reed are missionaries in a Muslim country. They teach, but have a secret church. And then someone rats them out. In trying to get the names of church members out of them, the police torture the husband, plant drugs, and inject the couple so it looks like a drug bust, instead of Muslims attacking Americans over religion. The husband dies, and the widow is denied life insurance benefits because her husband supposedly died of a drug overdose. So she takes the case to court, and her young lawyer must prove that not only was this not a drug bust, but torture of Americans for their faith, but he must also somehow prove that the Muslim government was behind it.

There is some romance thrown in, which is ok, and my friends who knock Christian fiction will be happy to know that though one of the main characters may be thinking about becoming a Christian, there is no end of the book conversion. (I have heard that complaint)

So, if you watch movies, check out The Stoning of Soraya M, and if not, then check out Randy Singer.

I will mention this later, but towards the end of July, I will be doing a book review of his new book on my blog as part of a blog tour. Among the options made available to me, is to do a giveaway, so I will be doing that. When I do the review, I will have a gift certificate good for a free copy of that book, The Justice Game. So keep your eyes on this spot.........

Sorry Neda, We Have a Pedophile to Worship

Just for the record, I firmly believe Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation, and had he not been a celebrity, would have been found guilty by the courts. It is sad when anyone dies, but it has been ridiculous the lamenting of his death. I ran acrosss this article by Joy Tiz - never read anything by her, but she nailed it in this article. Blog title is the title of her article. Check it out. (link here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12363)

For previous generations, the question: “Where were you when Kennedy was shot” has served as a conversation starter as well as a catalyst for exploration of a shared history. It would seem that the quintessential question will soon be: “where were you when you found out Michael Jackson was dead?”?

For the record, I was at the gym. Credulous, I trusted that the Jackson story would get a few minutes of coverage before Bret Baier returned. My jejune confidence that Charles Krauthammer would momentarily be providing commentary about actual news was hastily crushed. Abstrusely, Fox News brought Shepard Smith in to cover this astounding turn of events.

You know what would be really shocking? Michael Jackson dying at the age of 87. That would have been a real stunner, well deserving of the nauseating nonstop narration that should be reserved for heads of state.

Time really stands still on the treadmill when you are listening to a fervid Geraldo lamenting Anna Nicole Jackson’s “shocking” death.

All other news of the day having been declared inconsequential, Fox proceeded to indulge in unnecessary and disproportionate keening about the calamitous death of the world’s most famous pedophile.

The same Michael Jackson who once told a reporter it was “sweet” and “charming” to sleep with little boys and ply them with “Jesus Juice” (known to lucid people as “wine”) has been deified. Jackson, who dangled one of his babies off of a hotel balcony also obtained those children via a bizarre and labyrinthine arrangement, named one of them Blanket and made them wear burkas.

Jackson is exceedingly popular in the United Kingdom, confirming Mark Steyn’s reflection that the United Kingdom is further along than the United States in the march toward complete social and economic collapse. But not to worry, we won’t quit until we’re Number One.

Michael Jackson recently converted to Islam. Michael’s brother, Jermaine, converted to Islam in 1989. Even the Religion of Peace failed to deliver true bliss.

Americans know far more about Michael Jackson than they do about the history of Iran and its relationship to the United States. Most of what America knows is wrong, having been subjected to pertinacious propaganda in Ayers’ based public education.

Which is why the interest in the life and death of Neda Agah-Soltan was so facilely dwarfed by the opulent freak show that surrounds Michael Jackson.

Neda was the beautiful young Iranian woman who was gunned down in the streets of Tehran for the crime of showing up. She showed up to take a stand for freedom and took a bullet in the neck for her aspirations. A relative in the United States had cautioned Neda not to attend any demonstrations, telling her “They’re killing people.” To which the lionhearted and prescient Neda replied: “Don’t worry, it’s just one bullet and its over.”

For just a flicker in time, Neda became an icon, a symbol of the young Iranians’ longing for the most elemental liberties. It was easy for Americans to be incensed at the barbarous slaughter of a young woman so lovely and earnest. Young Iran has caught a glimpse of freedom, the inescapable byproduct of advancing technology. The noteworthiness of Neda is in no small measure due to the ease with which young Americans can appreciate her as not so unlike themselves.

Part of the delusive indoctrination that goes on in public schools includes the rewriting of Iranian history in a way that abets the left.

In actuality, before the Jimmy Carter regime, the United States and Iran were on friendly terms. The Shah of Iran was the least backward of all Muslim leaders. The shah, who is erroneously characterized as a villain, was responsible for giving women the right to vote. In other Arab states, they still don’t have the right to leave the house without a husband or other male relative.
Unimaginable though it may be post-Carter, Iran and Israel were not always bitter enemies. The current government of Iran is as much an enemy of the Iranian people as it is of Israel.

Iranians are understandably horrified by the new American president who has referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme Leader, a show of respect for the legitimacy of the barbaric regime. Barack Obama went so far as to send a letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini weeks before Iran’s June 12th election. Obama was pandering to the brutal, backwards and oppressive Iranian leadership.

Back when the news still took the trouble to cover the bloodbath in Iran, the world saw young Iranians holding signs in English. Urgent pleas were coming through computers worldwide begging the leader of the free world to help the Iranian people. Many Americans would be amazed to learn how many Iranians were educated via petrodollars in the United Kingdom or the United States. Some Iranian young people speak far better English than your local high school kids.

The late shah’s son reached out to Obama for support:

“I would like to take this opportunity and tell the President this is a crucial moment - on behalf of my compatriots and millions who have been turning to the outside world, particularly to this President - to say: don’t let us down.”

While Barack Obama was eating ice cream, Neda’s parents were forced from their home by government agents. Public displays of mourning were shut down. Nineteen year old Kaveh Alipour was gunned down by government barbarians. After frantically searching for news about his missing son at hospitals and eventually the morgue, Alipour’s father was told he would be required to pay a $3000 “bullet fee” to reimburse the government for the ammo expended in executing his child.

Barack Obama did eventually deliver the obligatory “we are outraged” statement. He held off as long as he could, until public opinion became too clamorous to overlook. While he gabbled, the violence in Iran escalated. Iranian citizens were being massacred in the streets with axes and machetes. Students were being routed from their beds in their dorm rooms.

Ronald Reagan responded to a similar cry for help from the people of Poland who were then enslaved by the Soviet Union. Reagan minced no words in decrying the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire”. He never expelled gibberish about how the United States shouldn’t “meddle” as innocent citizens suffer.

Then, as today, pantywaist liberals were caterwauling about toning down the rhetoric so as not to pique oppressive dictators. Thankfully, Reagan ignored such nattering. The Poles were doing what the Iranians are today: insisting on the most basic of human liberties. Ronald Reagan had no intention of sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how this thing played out:

“In a stiff note to Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev; Reagan said that if the Russians kept up their thuggish response to Poland they ‘could forget any new nuclear arms agreement.’ Gone too would be better trade relations, and in their place would be the ‘harshest possible economic sanctions’ if they even thought of invading Poland as they had done with Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956.”

The Soviets responded by declaring martial law and shutting down the Polish borders, as well as squelching communications with the outside world.

Reagan was unflinching. He wrote in his diary:

“I took a stand that this may be the last chance in our lifetime to see a change in the Soviet Empire’s colonial policy re Eastern Europe. We should take a stand and tell them unless and until martial law is lifted in Poland, the prisoners were released and negotiations resumed between Walesa and the Polish government, we would quarantine the Soviets and Poland with no trade or communications across their borders. Also tell our NATO allies and others to join us in such sanctions or risk an estrangement from us. A TV speech is in the works. “

Reagan helped spirit the defecting Polish Ambassador out of the country and to the United States. Leonid Brezhnev was livid. Reagan was delighted; Brezhnev’s outrage confirmed to Reagan that he was on the right track. Ronald Reagan went on to use every tool at his disposal to topple Brezhnev’s regime and replace him with Lech Walesa.
Ronald Reagan won the battle to liberate the Polish people. They have not forgotten. He is considered, in the words of the Polish president, the ”architect of democracy.”

Barack Obama is certainly no Ronald Reagan. The entire world, including the United States would be better off and more secure if the Ayatollah’s government toppled. The death of a pedophile has created a distraction from having to deal with the knotty problem of full scale slaughter in the streets of Iran.

Tyler Frost vs The Rules

I heard an interesting story on a talk show this morning. A young man who is a senior at a fundamental Baptist school in Toldeo, Ohio, is causing a stir. This school has some pretty strict rules, and at the start of each year, students must sign a contract agreeing to keep those rules.

Among those rules, is no listening to rock music, dancing, hand-holding, or kissing.

This young man, Tyler Frost, has a girlfriend who attends a public school, and wanted him to go to prom with her. He was given a permission slip to have his principal sign. The principal signed it, but pointed out the boy was going to be breaking school rules if he went, and said there would be consequences, and was told what they would be. The big one that is making news stories, is that Tyler will be allowed to graduate - he will be given his diploma, but he will not be allowed to be part of the graduation ceremony. He went to the prom, and now there is talk of the school being sued for their stance. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/state&id=6802905

Are the rules too strict? Maybe, considering they apply when the student is not in school, but the strictness of the rules is not in question, though many people calling in and emailing the talk show kept saying they are too strict. There is even a facebook support page for Tyler. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=a5c9012022bda2cc91ab0c61364669de&gid=85327102756&ref=search

The issue here is not whether the rules are too strict. The issue is that he signed a contract, knowing what the rules are, and agreeing to them, and now wants to break them without consequence. The parents are doing him harm by going after the school. They are teaching him that there are loopholes to rules, and that the rules don't always apply to him. That if he doesn't like the rules, then he shouldn't have to abide by them, or suffer consequences when he breaks them.

Life is full of rules, and many times we don't like them. When I worked at Hobby Lobby, their return policy had some rules. One that often didn't go over well, was the customer had to show their driver's license and give their phone number to return merchandise. Some customers would hassle the cashier, call for a manager, and throw a fit. All because they didn't like the rule, and thought it shouldn't apply to them.

Our job often has rules that we don't like, and may think is ridiculous, but if we want to work there, we have to keep them. Our churches have rules, and if we sign that membership paper, we promise to keep them, even if we don't like it.

Even the Bible has rules we may not like. That loving our enemies thing? That isn't easy, and a lot of people wish it wasn't in there, but if we want to serve God and do His will, we have to keep ALL the rules, not just the ones we like.

This case with Tyler Frost may seem like a small thing, but that is how society is today. Everyone wants to have their fun, without consequence. That is what abortion is all about, basically. People want to have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want, but they don't want to deal with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy - don't want that? Then keep the rules.

As far as anyone can tell, Tyler Frost wasn't going to the school against his will. He has gone there for four years, knows the rules, and agreed to keep them. Should there be consequences for breaking those rules? You bet. That is life, and we can never get away from rules.

Hannah Montana

I have never been a fan of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. I know, I'm not a teenage girl either. I have never been comfortable with the idea of her being a role model. I was also bothered by the fact that CBD (Christianbook.com) sells her products. I ran across something today that reinforced the unlikelihood of her being a positive role model. I in fact, emailed CBD and told them politely how I felt, and included the following with my email.

A bit of information first: Miss California was asked her opinion of gay marriage by a gay blogger, Perez Hilton. She is against it, and replied so, and that it should be between one man and one woman, and now she is being trashed for her stand. I read the story on Newsbusters, a conservative news site, and clicked on the link to this fella's website, curious to see what he was saying about it. There, I read these comments that Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana made. Would you want your daughter following her?

Referenced website: http://perezhilton.com/

Responding to a question we asked her on Twitter, The Hills star Heidi Montag Tweeted back saying:

"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to YOUR wedding, Perez!!!"

Woo hoo!!!! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Heidi Montag would have been a better Miss USA than Miss California. It's a good thing that blonde didn't win!

Update: Holy moly!

Disney star - and fellow Christian - Miley Cyrus has also thrust herself into the gay marriage debate.

Responding to us and Montag via Twitter, she says "i second that!!! wow heidi is smart!!! shes amazing "

Quite courageous for Cyrus to do what she just did. We applaud her!!!!

Update #2: When told of the high suicide rate amongst gay and lesbian teens and how her standing up for equality will help battle that, Miley Tweeted back to us, saying, "Jesus loves you AND your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! thats like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz hes gay and that is WRONG and very sad! like i said everyone deserves to be happy."

Thank you, Miley!

Update #3: Cyrus even went so far as to tweet to Perez, "i am a christian and i love you [Perez] - gay or not. BECAUSE you are no different that anyone else! we are all gods children! i am not saying this so would be nice on your site (though that would be nice jk;) but because the LORD has spoken 'love cuz god loves'."

Render a Verdict

I thought this was cool, so I am passing it on. I read books by Randy Singer, a lawyer turned Christian legal fiction author. For his upcoming book, he has a fictional case about a gun manufacturer being sued. You can watch a 5 minute video about this fictional case, then render your verdict in favor of the gun manufacturer, or the people suing them. Whatever decision is rendered on his website, is the decision that will be rendered in the book. Even if you don't read his books, it is an opportunity to help decide the outcome of a book:

http://www.randysinger.net/justice-game-video

A Double Standard

I read a story today that irritates me. Many of the comments on the story just annoyed me more: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1144341&srvc=home&position=1. Therefore, I shall get my trusty soapbox out.........

A female teacher seduced a 13 year old boy, and carried on a 2 year affair with him. Many of the comments on the story go on about how lucky the boy was, that it would be a fantasy of any boy his age, that it is different when it is a boy seduced by a woman.

Should it be different? If a man has sex with an underage girl, or boy, he is toast. He goes to prison for a very long time. If a woman has sex with a boy, she usually gets a slap on the wrist, because of sexual dynamics, to put it less bluntly. You would think that in this day of women wanting to be like men - equal rights, and all that - shouldn't they get equal prison time for sexual molestation? Is it any less wrong?

What should be done to an adult male who coerces your 12 or 13 year old daughter to have sex with him? If it were your son being coerced by a woman, would you feel the same way? I think most parents would, other than the idiots out there, like this comment:

" I notice a lot of comments have been removed. I suspect people don't want to hear opinions from people like myself who consider this kid to be very lucky. He knew full well what he was doing and most young men or grown ones to crave this kind of relationship. We have bizarre prudish laws in this country regarding sexual consent that do not have their basis in biology but rather certain peoples religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the invisible man in the sky and live your life according to his teachings that's fine but don't impose your goofy belief system on me or my kids."

The guy above is obviously a lunatic, and someone who sounds like an atheist. People like he have no morals, for they have no God to give them morals.

I don't have any kids, so thus some people think I am not allowed opinions where kids are involved...........but, I do have nieces & nephews. My oldest nephew is only 7, but whether he was 7 or 13, if an adult woman had sex with him, first off, I'd probably be behind bars for assault, but I would want him behind bars forever. This idea that because boys can't really be raped by a woman, and are sex addicts just waiting to happen, is absurd, and is a double standard. Women deserve to get the highest penalty possible for having sexual relations with underage boys, as men do for the same with girls or boys.

I have never, nor would ever, have sexual relations with an under aged kid, but this double standard annoys the daylights out of me. Unless we crack down on women predators, we will continue to have more and more of this problem. Adults should not have sex with kids. Period. It doesn't matter the gender of the adult or kid, it is wrong, and should be punished to the highest degree.

As a country, we seem to be going downhill morally. There are, sadly, people who want to lower the age of sexual consent. We need to fight this trend with all that is in us, and punish sexual crimes with no double standard.

Breast-feeding & Facebook

I thought this was so ludicrous, I just had to post it here. Hundreds of breast-feeding moms are in a frenzy and boycotting Facebook. Why? Because due to Facebook photo regulations, women cannot post picture of themselves breast-feeding that reveal too much. How cruel. I'd like for someone to come up with an intelligent reason why a woman would want to post a picture like that anyway?! It is a private thing- should be done away from people, and definitely not have pictures posted on the web.

As a side note, here is a bit of trivia that the average person may not know. A lot of people behind the breast-feeding craze (and I am not including the average normal mother in that) - the ones who do the billboards and commercials - they have an agenda. They are animal rights activists who don't want the milk of animals used, so they push breast-feeding. Anyway, that was just a side note. I am not knocking it, though our family doesn't do it, and it seems it would have its disadvantages, but to each her own!

"Mass online protest movement is gathering pace after Facebook banned some breastfeeding photos from the social-networking Web site.

Angry mothers even picketed the Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., in a live "nurse-in" to complain about a ban on photos of mothers suckling their children that exposed too much of the mother's breast.

Hundreds of women have had their pictures removed without warning and have been informed that they may be barred from using the site.

More than 80,000 people have joined a Facebook petition group called "Hey Facebook, Breast-Feeding is Not Obscene" with hundreds joining every hour.

More than 11,000 women from around the world took part in an online "nurse-in" protest on Saturday by posting more breastfeeding pictures. The protest's organizers reported that many have since had these photos removed from the site.

Facebook has said that it has no problem with breastfeeding but photos that showed nipples or areolas were indecent and had to be removed.

Barry Schnitt, a Facebook spokesman, said the Web site takes no action over most breast-feeding photos because they follow the site's terms of use.

"We agree that breast-feeding is natural and beautiful and we're very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook," said Schnitt.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,474044,00.html

There is comment that I got - that did not ofend me in the least, but after reading it, thought I would add this even though I put it in my comments:
I guess I should have been specific with the disadvantages: from being around breast-feeding women, I think there are a few. One being, if they want to leave the child with anyone for any extended amount of time, they have to use a pump and go through all that. Another, sometimes it isn't convenient to find a place to do it, and I think it is out of place for a woman to do it in public, even if she is covered. Another: I personally enjoyed feeding my nieces and nephews and know others in the family, even their fathers, enjoy doing that too. That can't happen when the mother breast-feeds, again unless she uses a pump all the time, and I can see how they want the bonding experience, but its nice for other family members to be able to have that too. Kids that are bottle fed can be fed anywhere, anytime, by anybody, which is pretty convenient.
I was in no means saying the kid is inferior, etc, if they are breast-fed. The disadvantages I refer to are for the sake of convenience. Those are the disadvantages I see, and even the women in my family have commented about the same, so it isn't just my opinion as a man, and I am in no means against women doing it. If I marry, I wouldn't want my wife to for these reasons outlined above, but to each their own. I don't have strong opinions about it like home schooling. I am not out to argue about bf, just stating the disadvantages, and not saying that makes bf bad. :-)

And something else I will add for the possible enjoyment of you who breast feed, a story told to me by a co-worker about a friend of hers: Seems the mother, a bf mother, went to town and left the baby with the father. It had just been fed, so she figured all would be well. Wrong. It fusssed so much, in desperation, the father figured he would try a unique way to quiet the kid: He lifted his shirt and let the kid latch on. Problem, the kid built up so much suction that he couldn't pry it loose, not having experience in that area, so he had to wait for Mom to come home and bail him out. And can you imagine the sight that met her? :-)

Activism At A New Level

This story was too funny to not pass on. This may sound rude, but animal rights activists are truly idiotic morons - too bad they don't try to stop the murder of innocent babies instead of doing bizarre things like this:

Gay penguins expelled from zoo colony for stealing eggs are given their own to look after following animal rights protest

By Caroline GrahamLast updated at 4:13 PM on 15th December 2008


A pair of gay penguins thrown out of their zoo colony for repeatedly stealing eggs have been given some of their own to look after following a protest by animal rights groups.
Last month the birds were segregated after they were caught placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs.

But angry visitors to Polar Land in Harbin, northern China, complained it wasn't fair to stop the couple from becoming surrogate fathers and urged zoo bosses to give them a chance.

Who's the daddy? The segregated penguin couple, right, are seen here in their own enclosure quarrelling with another male over stolen eggs

In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.
'We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo,' said one of the keepers.
'It's very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination.'

Wildlife experts at the park explain that despite being gay the three-year-old male birds are still driven by an urge to be fathers.

'One of the responsibilities of being a male adult is looking after the eggs. Despite the fact that they can't have eggs naturally, it does not take away their biological drive to be a parent,' said one.

One campaigner who did not want to be named welcomed the move and said: 'It wasn't fair to stop them becoming parents and keep them apart from all the other birds just because of the way nature has made them.'

Last month zookeepers said the couple were removed from the group not because of discrimination, but so as not to disturb the colony during hatching time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1094977/Gay-penguins-expelled-zoo-colony-stealing-eggs-given-look-following-animal-rights-protest.html

The Cross And The Water Tower

OK, this is kind of a review of a book I have not read or bought yet, but it sounds neat, and I researched the story behind the book. Here is a description from OneNewsNow.com:

"Every Christmas for 40 years, the little town of Wauconda displayed a lighted cross on its water tower. It was a tradition everyone looked forward to. But this year, the town found itself embroiled in a battle that caught them totally by surprise. Someone had complained about the cross on public property.

But thankfully, a children's club comes to the rescue. Casey Wilkerson, president of the Water Tower Club, calls members together to decide how to deal with the debate over the cross. They can't imagine Christmas without the symbol of the cross, so they come up with a plan.

The Cross and the Water Tower is a new children's Christmas story written and illustrated by teenage cousins and based on real events in 1989 in Wauconda, Illinois. That was when American Atheists challenged the village's annual practice of a lighted cross on the water tower. In the fictional account, local resident Thomas Birdie contacts an outside organization to come and help him get the cross removed. The organization is not named in the book, but its representative, William Hebert, interrupts a town meeting to declare, "We believe in a constitutional separation of church and state."

Hebert then threatens the town with a lawsuit and the town leaders realize they cannot afford a costly legal battle. Hebert gives them until Christmas Eve to remove the lighted cross, and officials comply with his demand. That's where the kids come in – with an ingenious way to counter the outsider's demand that the cross be removed.

Seventeen-year-old Patrick Mangan, co-author of the book, says, "The true story of the town's heroic stand was the inspiration for our book. Kids today inherit a culture hostile to our faith – and so we share this story with other children to give them hope and a positive way to deal with the attacks on Christianity they will probably experience."

"This is a great story," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. "It addresses the reality of what the next generation faces in our nation, and it reflects precisely the kind of issues AFA has tackled for more than 30 years."

I googled the town name and a few key words to find out a bit more, and here is what I found from the Lake County Journal:

'The Cross and the Water Tower, A Christmas Story'
By PAT WEISS

That’s the name of a wonderful new book that is based on a true memorable 1989 incident, or Wauconda fights back, as Your Friendly Columnist puts it.

Here’s what happened in Wauconda.For years a sturdy cross sat atop our water tower, and during the Christmas season it was lit by tiny Christmas tree lights. It was a positive beacon of faith and good will toward man.

One day a stranger with a different belief system from ours, who lived 50 miles away, showed up with the intent of getting the cross removed. He planned to go to court and fight, using the funds and power of a strong organization with his belief system and misusing the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. That doctrine really means that the federal government should not establish a church.Wauconda, however, did not have the money for a court battle.

So, the cross came down. But Wauconda residents fought back. Suddenly crosses started to appear all over town. On roof tops, in windows, on lawns - everywhere you looked there was a cross.

Last year, a few talented teens were so moved by hearing this story, they were inspired to write the book. It’s a fictional novel based on the 1989 incident. Patrick and Mary Mangan have written a wonderful book and K.P. Sullivan has beautifully illustrated it. A group of their teen friends helped with the research. It is a lovely book and would make a great Christmas gift.The book is dedicated to the 1989 residents of Wauconda. Your Friendly Columnist is happy to live in a country that honors religious freedom, and she’s proud to be a part of a town that fights for it. She is also grateful for our future that looks to be in good hands, if they are all like Patrick’s, Mary’s, K.P.’s and their pals."

I think the book sounds good, and may try to get hold of a copy some day. The thought that hit me when I read about the book, and then read the newspaper article, was why can't we be more like that? When the atheists cause the 10 Commandments to be taken from a court house, all of the Christians in that town should post the 10 Commandments. When it is a nativity scene, put out Nativity scenes. We are letting the atheists get away with too much, and though this story happened almost 20 years ago, it is refreshing to read about a town who didn't take it sitting down.

The Big Takeover?

I read a couple of alarming news articles today on onenewsnow.com - no surprise really, but it is still alarming. Neither is very long, so I have posted them here:

"With Brazil's government caving in to homosexual activism, many fear America is not far behind.

Brazilian activists have launched several lawsuits to silence Christian opposition of homosexuality, and a Christian author has been both censored and fined over comments in his book. Mat Barber, with Liberty Counsel, believes America will likely follow suit. "It's really chilling, and people need to be aware that this is not a threat that is isolated to Brazil or Europe or Canada," he contends. "It's coming to our shores (America) as well." LifeSiteNews.com reports the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a criminal complaint against several websites for exposing their societal leader Luiz Mott's promotion of pedophilia and other illegal sexual acts. Barber explains he has witnessed homosexuals seeking to legally silence Christians and notes similar governmental legislation will be reviewed in Washington in January. "Hate crimes legislation, the Employment Non-discrimination act -- legislation that under a President Barack Obama and with liberals in control of the House and the Senate, we can expect to see passed," he says. Barber cites Colorado as an example that some states already have similar laws in place. "Governor Ritter signed into law a bill that says it is essentially illegal to write anything that's homophobic," he adds. "So based on that law in Colorado now, to actually publish the Bible would be considered a violation of the law."

And the second:

President-elect Barack Obama is moving swiftly to appoint homosexual activists to positions within his administration.

Politico.com reports that 10 national homosexual organizations are working with the Obama transition team to get more openly homosexual people appointed to the incoming administration. Obama's transition team has also reportedly named at least seven openly homosexual people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies. Three of the seven homosexuals on transition panels have held high-level positions in the Clinton administration.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says Obama is keeping his promises to the homosexual lobby. Obama throughout the campaign signaled…very quietly, but nonetheless signaled on his web page and elsewhere that he essentially had signed off on every major demand of homosexual pressure groups," he said. "So it's not surprising that he has now allowed some of these radical activists to become part of his administration."

According to the Washington Blade, Obama officials also named President Bush's former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, to a transition panel assigned to review issues pertaining to the State Department.