Subscribe: Peace amid Chaos
Preview: Peace amid Chaos

Peace amid Chaos

Commentary on Society and the Cultural Divide

Updated: 2015-09-16T09:25:01.052-07:00


Gay Rights and the Church


The title of this article is actually a contradiction in terms. The "Christian" church has become so watered down and weak that the majority of "Christians" remain as babes their entire life, only being capable of eating "milk", not the true "meat" of God's word. If you are a true Christian, then you most assuredly read the Bible and commune daily with God. Therefore, you must be versed in the scripture, and therefore, you are aware that the Bible considers Homosexuality a sin. I did not write the Bible, it is the word of God, but I do believe wholeheartedly in the Bible. Too many "Christians" have become pick and choose believers that only follow the scriptures they agree with. In a word, this is WRONG. They worship as fools worship; not my words, it is in the Bible. Saying this, people that are living the homosexual lifestyle should be welcomed into church so that they might hear the truth, but they can not be allowed to lead or influence the church in any way as long as they do not repent of their sins. This goes for all people, not just homosexuals. We all fall short of the glory of God, but as Christians, we must aspire daily to be more like Christ. Our world has become so concerned with nickles and noses that God has become an afterthought at most churches. Church is to be God centered, not man centered, but most pastors worry more about what their congregation believes than what God has said. These practices have basically tied the hands of God, and then people wonder why the church is weak and anemic. It is a sad commentary, but it is true, read the Bible for yourself, and not just that part you like, read it all. So many churches preach only the feel good portions of the Bible, but that is a charade, and they will never come to a full understanding of God, or the purpose he has for their lives.

Heaven for non-Christians?


As with many issues, compassion and humanism have a way of clouding this issue. However, the answer, although unpopular in today's culture, is black and white, no shades of gray. Let me first state that I know many caring, compassionate people that will whole heartedly disagree with what I am about to write, and that is OK, that is what makes Helium great, it is a place to express opinions. A Christian family member of mine has been struggling with this exact question for some time, and she expressed her theory to me on the matter. She has theorized that we will all be judged on merit, and that devout Jews, Muslims, etc will have a chance to enter Heaven upon their demise. The only problem with this theory is that she is a human, she is not God, and in reality, only God's opinion matters. Recently, a well know religious figure, Joel Osteen, was asked this same question by Larry King on national television. His answer surprised me, and in many ways it troubled me about his resolve. What was his answer to this difficult question? He simply did not give an answer at all. I would have much rather him answered on way or the other, at least that would have shown some backbone. In a world where far too many churches have become more interested with attendance that truth, his lack of an answer weakened the church as a whole. So, what is the correct answer to this question? As with all questions involving God, we must turn to the Word of God to get the only important opinion, God's own opinion. There are many passages that deal with this issue, but for the sake of time, we can look at one passage and get the answer we are looking for.
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
From this passage, it is clear that to enter Heaven, you must come to Christ. There is no wiggle room on this issue, for Jesus did not say you can be born again, he said you MUST be born again. As I stated, this issue is black and white, and I know that I am correct in my analysis because what I have written lines up with the word of God; and any one person and God make a majority.

Debunking the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories


This is quickly becoming a classic conspiracy theory, and one reason for the ascent is the lack of actual facts known by the majority of Americans. As with many issues facing us today, everyone twists the truth to accommodate their own ideas. If you hate the Bush administration, then any insignificant detail can be made into an unencroachable argument that the government destroyed the twin towers. If you love George W. Bush, you call these conspiracy theorists crack pots. On this issue, I have to side with the Bush lovers. I myself like George W. Bush, and I support him as president, but I most certainly do not love him or his administration. The entire administration has been run poorly, and sloppily for the past six years, and no one with an honest mind can disagree with that statement. However, to blame a terrorist attack on the government just because you might have watched a hatchet job documentary that distorted information to make a political point, and that was created by a low rate person like Michael Moore that one minute complains taxes are too low on the rich, and the next minute changes his residence to avoid paying taxes, is a vastly short sighted and irresponsible thing to do. There have been claims that federal gold was removed from the twin towers weeks before the disaster, but that is not true. Federal gold was never stored in the towers, only personal and corporate holdings. Next, there are those that claim the buildings were blown up with question, why didn't anyone notice the charges being placed? Do you realize how much work, and C-4, it takes to bring down two buildings by placing charges in the basement? It is ridiculous that people are so full of hate that they create such outlandish stories. Next, why did Bush finish his time with the children? Perhaps, as the rest of us, he was told that it was probably an accident, and he did not want to worry the children he was speaking to. Perhaps he is a compassionate man, not a calculating mass murderer. Next, the dispersement of funds issue is another example of taking insignificant details and blowing them out of proportion. Did you not see the way our bureaucracy handled Katrina relief? Do you think we also have a weather machine that created the hurricane just so we could create a bureaucratic nightmare in its aftermath? Wake up people. Finally, what about the claims from terrorists leaders that they had something to do with the planning of 9-11? Are they on the government payroll? Look people, 9-11 was a tragedy, not a government conspiracy. The last bit of information that proves the government had nothing to do with 9-11 is very simple. To pull off such an event, thousands of people would have had to be involved, and the government would have had to pull off this mind blowing event without a hitch, with no one admitting the fallacy to the press for their 15 minutes of fame...the Government is not even capable of baking a cake without 47 mistakes and a vote, so how do you think these people, called incompetent idiots by most of the people that believe this theory, could pull off such an event? Well, are they morons, or masterminds? Make up your mind, or take your Lithium.

Why Socialism Will Never Work (in a nutshell)


Utopia, the perfect society, or according to one well known Senator, the perfect village...the theory of Socialism at its root is a wonderful theory. The idea that everyone in a society thrives, and that poverty becomes a thing of the past through collective hard work and compassion. What is wrong with this idea that so many "progressive" thinkers have adopted as their life's ambition...simple, it does not work. The reason that the theory of Socialism does not work is complex, but it can be made simple for the purpose of this article, in short, it is a theory. The problem with a theory, or a concept, or an idea for that matter, is that they all look great on paper, in lab conditions, but when you try to enact them in the real world, the ugly truth about most theories begins to show. For Socialism to work, every member of a society must pull their own weight. Take a look around, does that seem possible to you, as an intelligent life form? The truth is that Socialist are idealistic, and if they truly believe that Socialism will work in a real society, they are also naive. It has been proven that water will follow the path of least resistance, and in many ways, humans are like water. If you constantly give a person sustenance without requiring them to work for that sustenance, they will never work. The old adage, give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime is very pertinent to this discussion. If the government constantly gives men fish, why would they buy their own pole and bait a hook? The answer, they will not. Socialism will never work for the same reason that capitalism makes some people rich. In a capitalist market, those who work the hardest gain the most spoils. Removing the incentive for these hard workers to work, by redistributing their spoils, does nothing more than create mass poverty, it does not eliminate poverty. Look around, has socialism ever been successful? Were the bread lines of the Soviet Union a picture of success? If so, why is America, a capitalist nation, so much stronger in every facet of life than quasi-socialist nations like Cuba? Why do thousands of Cubans risk their lives every year in an attempt to reach America? It seems so simple, and in fact it is. This life is a survival of the fittest, it is human nature, and as long as humans are involved in the equation, Socialism will never work.

Impending Threat?


The attack on 911 served as a wake up call for many Americans. What was the message being delivered by a group of Muslims hijacking 4 planes, crashing two into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvanian field? Simple, we were at war. It mattered not, and matters not, if we wish to participate in this war actively, we are at war. Many say that this is an archaic idea, but their opinion matters not to the enemy. Whether or not Americans acknowledge they are at war with radical Muslims; radical Muslims are at war with America. The politically correct parade that consumes so much of our society will contend that not all Muslims are out to destroy America, and they are right, but during the second World War, were all Germans against the free world? Today's world is no less dangerous than Europe in the 40's, in fact, in many ways it is more dangerous. Today's enemy does not care about living themselves, and that makes it even more difficult to defeat. Also, the world moves at a much faster pace today, and things can happen in an instant that will change the world forever. Why is this happening? What has America done to these people to anger them so? Simple, America has refused to conform to their way of life, their religion, and their culture, and in the world of radical Islam, that is all that is required to earn a death sentence. Many do not take the threat seriously, and constantly say that anyone that does is over reacting. I am sure that the same opinion was popular in Constantinople before it fell. This extreme degree of passiveness and complacency only fuels the fire of our enemy. The real question is not if this "war" will continue and escalate, the only question is when. Will we be prepared, will we be strong and united as a country, or will be be divided, and weak? These questions will be answered, and it could be soon.

Have we gone too far in our war against Terror?


To answer this question we must first understand the term terrorism. Otherwise, how are we to determine if we have gone "too far" with anti-terroristic measures. Terrorism, as defined by Webster, is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition brings many questions to the debate at hand. For one, is the success of terrorism predicated on the destruction of property? From the definition, it is actually dependent on intimidation created by the threat of violence and destruction. Therefore, by intimidating our country, have the terrorists already achieved their goal? It is a very interesting question, and I believe I have a very interesting answer. To say that terrorist pose no threat to our country, since there have been no serious attacks since 9-11, is simply false. There are "attacks" on a daily basis. Threats are a form of terrorism, and in many cases, the damage they do is similar to the damage done by a physical attack. For this reason, I say the threat is very real, and the danger posed is equally real. The question of going to far to stop terroristic activities is actually laughable. Our society has become so entrenched, and so based upon personal gratification, the idea of sacrificing for the good of the country has become almost extinct. The cries of "you are violating my rights", and "free speech", and even "you can not racially profile to ensure security" have become a large part of our societal debate on terrorism. Imagine if the prevalent attitude of today would have been around in the 1940's to the same degree that it currently exists, what would have happened in Europe during WWII? I don't dislike the German language, but I am certainly glad that our forefathers sacrificed their liberties to defeat the evil that existed during their time. In my opinion, you can never do "too much", or go "too far" to defeat evil. The only reason we have our freedoms is the fact that those befor us have sacrificed to help us keep them. Do you want your children, and their children, to be free, or do you want them to grow up in a world where terrorists rule with intimidation? We can never go too far when terror is concerned, in fact, do not feel that we have gone far enough. "Ask not what your country can do for you....".

Is God a Republican or a Democrat?


In case anyone had not noticed, the Bible makes no reference to the Republican or Democratic parties. The answer to whether God wants you to be a Democrat or a Republican can be summed up by one verse in the book of Joshua. While standing outside of Jericho, Joshua had a visitation from what can best be described as Jesus in the Old Testament. In the fifth chapter, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant.
In this passage, Joshua asks Christ the same question many are asking today. The Republicans will claim God is on their side, and some Democrats will claim God is on their side, but the answer is NAY. The real question is not which party God affiliates himself with, because as it is later stated, God is no respect of faces (he does not value one above another), but what party affiliates itself with God. Unfortunately, neither party can claim that they support God fully, and for this reason, it comes down to individuals, not parties. There are many aspects of the Political process that leave God out all together. The slander, mud slinging, back door dealings, and corruption that has become common in the political realm leave one dazed. This is simply more evidence that each candidate should be looked at on his or her merits, and personal position on each issue, not the letter listed beside their name. In many respects, George Washington was wise beyond his days when he suggested that there be no political parties, just individual candidates. This is how God views politics, he looks into the heart of the individual, not their party. However, can it be said that during any one point in history one party is closer to the path of God? Certainly God was not in favor of slavery, and in the same respect, he does not favor Gay Marriage or Abortion, so there is some merit to this point. All in all, I would have to say that God is not in favor of either party, and as I stated earlier, the question is, which party is in favor of God. From the looks of things, maybe God will abstain this time around



The death of Hollywood is not a death in the conventional definition of the word. In fact, many in Hollywood are still making millions from movies, television, and documentaries. However, the death of Hollywood is more of an ever present internal decay of civility and culture that threatens to distort the meaning of the term mainstream. For instance, are George Clooney and his political views mainstream? Hardly, but in an acceptance speech he praised Hollywood for being real, and for understanding what real people are thinking and feeling on a daily basis....anyone else see a problem? Mr. Clooney simply serves as an example of the fact that Hollywood has lost touch with mainstream America, and in many ways it is losing credibility. In the heyday of Hollywood, the actors and actresses embodied the values of the populous. We even elected one of the most popular presidents in our history due in large part to his life in Hollywood. What has happened? For one, the culture of the left coast has invaded the culture that is Hollywood. It is not uncommon today for a star or starlet to be divorced weekly, and to have a lifetime membership at the Betty Ford Clinic. These examples are symptoms of the larger problem, a lack of morality, and a complete detachment between the multi-millionaires on the big screen, and the people that pay $12 a pop to watch them. One example of this moral decay is the recent scene starring a twelve year old actress that depicts her being viciously raped by her father. Is that mainstream American values? Hey, but her parents are hoping the scene will win little Dakota an Oscar, and what is more important than the money that will generate? You see, as Hollywood becomes more and more edgy, and less and less moral, there comes a race to be the edgiest, and in that race, the winner will truly lose mainstream America, and their soul. Hollywood? How about UnHolywood?

Ethical Hypocrisy


Well, the House at Senate is at it again...slander, hypocrisy, unethical seems that the ruling party makes no difference. After years of Republican domination in both houses, and screams of unethical behavior being fired across the aisle from the Democrats, the tables have turned. After the classless words of Barbera Boxer aimed at Condi Rice on Friday, I did a little research on Boxer. She is insistent that if you have no immediate family in the military, you can make no policy on Iraq. Therefore, maybe Boxer should be kept out of all policy relating to finances...she passed over $40,000.00 worth of bad checks in the not so distant past. Sounds a little unethical if you ask me. I can see maybe one thousand dollars, but if you get up to forty thousand, you must know the check is bad before you write it...but she is a liberal woman and a Democrat, so I guess she gets a pass. Then there are the cries of bipartisanship from the Democratic House members. They constantly complained that their Republican counterparts would not let them make amendments to proposed laws. Therefore, when the Democrats took over, you would think that they would rise above the fray and seek a truce with their Republican brothers and sisters...wrong. They have passed a rule that Republicans can make no amendments. Then there is the great, recently re-elected William Jefferson of Louisiana, or should we call him Cool Dollar Bill Jefferson. He was caught with $90,000.00 worth of marked bills that were used to bribe him by an undercover agent...sounds ethical to me. Lastly, actually this is not the final example I have found, but it is the last one I will put in this article, there is the great Nancy Pelosi. Does anyone else find it odd that after preaching about the need for a minimum wage increase in all U.S. Jurisdictions that American Samoa was exempted from the law? Not so strange when you realize that Star Kist, based in Nancy Pelosi's district, has an enormous operation in American Samoa...oh so ethical. So, before you cast a stone, maybe a check in the mirror is in order. Leadership brings with it great responsibility, and apparently neither party has figured this out.

The Political Playground


Liberal Wacko, Wingnut, Commie, Troll, Traitor, Dictator, Nazi, Fascist, and so on, and so on....Sound familiar? If you have looked on any number of blogs, or listened to the radio in the past few years, you most certainly have heard or read these terms fired from one side of the aisle to the other. The problem is that you have heard very little else, and very rarely do you hear or read anything logical or with substance. What has happened to our once civilized political process? In short, the adults have began acting like children at recess, so what do you think the next generation, the one's now being raised by these adults, will be like? Without strong communication, little can be accomplished in our world, especially in the realm of politics, and at the rate we are going, it will not be long until absolutely nothing will happen unless one party has a strong majority in both houses, and controls the presidency and the courts, and that is not what the founding fathers intended. In fact, this is the scenario George Washington feared when he suggested that there be no political parties, just candidates, and by George..pardon the pun..I think he got it. Of course, it is not just politics, look at the culture and you will see a picture of the nation, and unfortunately it is becoming more abstract by the day. One good example is seen in the feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell. Nothing of substance has actually been stated by either party, and yet it is has been front page news for almost a month. This is a symptom of the bigger problem our society is facing, a lack of civility, manners, and honest discourse, and it could bring our nation to a standstill. The problem with that is that much like business, you either move forward or you die, and yes, it is possible. Can you even imagine politicians of the past behaving in the corrupt way that the majority now behaves? Actions have consequences, and I for one still have hope that we as a nation can come together and survive the consequences that are coming.

Enough with the fascism talk


After browsing the many blogs and websites on the internet dedicated to politics and news, I have come to multiple conclusions. For one, there is a very high degree of hate and venom on both sides of the political spectrum, and the idea of a moderate is becoming extinct. That said, one of my conclusions really bothered me concerning the political climate of today, and it stems from the use of hate speech. In fact, I was appalled by the racial slurs that riddled almost every sight, primarily the liberal leaning sites. Considering these facts, I probably should not be surprised by the rampant over use, and misuse, of a term that I came across on approximately 99 percent of the left leaning sites when the Bush administration came up. This term is fascism, and I was astounded by the number of people that use the word with no apparent knowledge of its meaning. The term fascist, as defined by Webster is one that partakes in the system known as fascism. So, I looked up the word fascism, and it was defined as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Did I miss an announcement regarding the government? Are we really controlled by a dictator now, or do the majority of those using the term have absolutely no idea what it means? Looking even deeper into the definition, we see that a fascist is one on that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism. If that were the case in the United States, then how are all of these people openly criticizing the current administration? Furthermore, how do these people explain the fact that the opposition party has control of the House and Senate? Once again, the far left has decided that facts are not important when an attempt to further one’s agenda is taking place. Finally, emphasizing aggressive nationalism and racism is listed. If this were the case in the United States, would millions of illegal immigrants still be living hear? All that I ask is that people think before they speak, what do you think?



The propaganda machine that is Hillary Clinton has obviously struck again, and this time her victim is a Democrat. Over the past seven days there have been three attacks leveled at Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, and in my opinion, all three have the fingerprint of a Clinton. First, CNN "mistakenly" labeled a picture of Osama bin Laden with Obama's name. Second, it was revealed that Obama experimented with cocaine during his youth...during the 2000 election, the Gore/Clinton camp made the same revelation about George W. Bush...coincidence? And now, thirdly, Yahoo news labeled a picture of Barak Obama with the name Osama bin Laden. Many on the left are blaming the Republican party for these three mistakes/revelations, but consider this, no one has more to lose due to Obama's popularity than Hillary Clinton. In fact, the Republican party would love to see Obama knock Clinton out of the Democratic nomination because he has little chance of winning nationally. This is partly because of his name, but the main reason that I feel he is unelectable is his lack of experience, and his age. In any event, these mistakes hold all the hallmarks of past Clinton propaganda machine character assassinations. Just ask Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and the untold dozens of women that threatened to speak out about the harassments they endured at the hand of the other Clinton. One final bit of evidence linking the Clinton camp to these attacks comes from one time Clinton advisor and confidant Dick Morris who stated a couple of weeks ago that events such as these would soon come to pass if Obama continued to gain popularity...guess he was right.

Where is the outrage?


Just another case of hypocrisy in action from the mainstream media and those far left of center in the United States. The Massachusetts legislature finally voted, on the last day possible, to allow the people of their state to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution. That may seem like a non-issue to many, but the fact that they considered not voting on the issue, effectively killing it, is the problem. According to the constitution of Massachusetts, the state legislature is bound to cast a vote on issues concerning amendments to the state document, and the less than conservative State Supreme Court even affirmed this fact as a group of politicians, including the Governor elect of the state, Deval Patrick, lobbied to let the issue die without a vote. In effect, these politicians were attempting to by-pass the will of the people, and ignore the constitution they swear to uphold to further their own agenda. This is disturbing considering the willingness of the mainstream media to label the President of the United States, or anyone they disagree with, a fascist, but turning their head to these acts of subversion. Where is the outrage? Where are the countless articles calling the governor elect a fascist for ignoring the constitution and the people to further his views? I for one do not think the governor elect is a fascist, but if the definition put forth by the mainstream media regarding fascism, when relating to people they disagree with, is to be used across the board for people of both parties, he falls into that category. Just one more case of hypocrisy in the media, especially the print media. What's good for the gooses is still good for the gander....isn't it?

How We Pray - A little something different since it is Christmas


The question of how to pray is very important to creating a strong relationship with God. There are many myths about prayer that leave a great portion of today’s Christians with much less power than God intends for us to have. A strong relationship with anyone requires good communication, and the same can be said for our walk with God. One common myth about prayer is that praying is about asking God for what we desire. One scripture commonly used to back this idea up is found in the seventh chapter of Matthew, where Jesus, speaking to the multitude, stated that if you “ask, it shall be given to you.” So, it is that simple, just tell God what you want, and he will send it to you. That is not exactly what Jesus was saying, but many take this scripture out of context, and then they wonder why the new car they asked for has not arrived. If the scriptures surrounding these words from Jesus are analyzed, the true message becomes clear. In the eleventh verse, we can see that Jesus clarifies his statement by telling the multitude that the “Father, which is in heaven, (will) give good things to them that ask of him.” What are good things? When the entire message to the multitude is read, it becomes clear that good things are those things which can be used to glorify God, and to strengthen his kingdom. God is more than willing to provide for his people when they ask, but in return, we should work for the Father to bring him the glory. Asking for material wealth to glorify man is a selfish prayer, and that is not what God is looking for. Ok, so how are we supposed to pray? One good way to be successful in all aspects of life is to look at others who are successful, and learn from them. If you are poor, do not look for answers from other poor people, look to the successful, and learn from them. If you are depressed, do not ask other depressed people how to live happily, talk to happy people for guidance. It seems simple, and in effect it is, but too many people do not follow this common sense approach to a better life. When looking for guidance on prayer, who better to learn from than the one who’s prayers were always answered, Jesus. The New Testament is filled with instruction on prayer for anyone who takes the time to study the life, words, instruction, and even the actual prayers of Jesus. In the same message to the multitude from which many people cherry pick the “ask and it shall be given” message, Christ gives a vast amount of instruction on prayer. In the sixth chapter of Matthew, Jesus instructs that we are not to “be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” He goes on to say that we should “enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Is Jesus instructing us to pray only when no other person is around? This is a scripture often used out of context by those who do not want to go to church, and insist that they are better served by praying alone at home. It is true that private prayer is needed, but corporate prayer and worship is modeled throughout the bible, and the most powerful appearances of God occur when many are gathered, praying and worshiping corporately. The message being conveyed by Jesus is that prayer is for the glorification of the Father, not for the glorification of man. Eloquent words in the public square are often uttered to impress man, but the Father hears the prayers of the humble that seek only to glorify him. Reading on, we see more instruction from Jesus regarding prayer. Jesus instructs that y[...]

No room for Moderates in '08


Although the next presidential election is still two years away, the subject already monopolizes many political conversations. With Barak Obama gaining steam, Hillary steaming, and a battle shaping up between Rudy and McCain, it appears that the next two years will be, if nothing else, interesting. With these four wannabe moderates leading the way, one might assume that the theme of the 2008 election season will be moderation, but I for one see it differently. Much could happen to change my mind between now and November of ’08, but as of today, I believe that there will be no room for moderates in the race to the Whitehouse. In fact, the two men I think will represent their respective parties have not even announced they are running. On the side of the Democrats, I see a man that is far from moderate gathering steam and support. This man is a familiar face, and he is the anti-Bush, which will appeal strongly to the Democratic Party which has a leadership that seems to be sliding farther left by the minute. In my opinion, Al Gore will represent the Democrats in November of 2008. I know, I know, Obama mania has taken root in the Northeast, the Midwest, and even the far out West coast, but when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, the Democrats will choose Gore. Why? Other than his experience, which Obama lacks, Gore has begun leading the crusade on all things environmental. He has also cheered loudly for the cut and run crowd, and his sound bites are priceless. Remember this one…”He betrayed his country, he played on our fears…”? This Goreism brings up the major reason I believe Gore will be the Democratic candidate come ’08, he is the anti-Bush. As the left becomes even more and more opposed to everything the current administration does, Gore will become a stronger and stronger candidate. On the other side of the aisle, I see a true dark-horse emerging from the conservative right. When it comes down to it, the majority of the mainstream Republican Party votes conservative, especially on social issues. This is the main reason I do not see McCain, or the socially liberal Giuliani getting the nod. The man I truly believe will win the Republican nomination is Rick Santorum. Right now this prediction seems far fetched, but give it some time. While McCain and Rudy split each other’s vote in half, the ultra-conservative Santorum will find his niche among the conservative base. This will leave a general election with polar opposites gunning for the presidency. Who will win? That will be determined primarily by turnout. It will truly be a Conservative vs. Liberal election, and we will see once and for all where our country really lies.

Why Wal-Mart?


The newest “evil” being attacked by the left may be a surprise to many Americans. There is a full fledged attack on the Wal-Mart corporation that has actually gained endorsement from politicians such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and even the prodigal son of Democrats, Barak Obama. Upon hearing that this attack was being waged, I found myself a little bewildered. It just was not clear to me what the Left could possibly have against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart provides millions of consumers with affordable goods; and they provide millions of employees, many of which would otherwise be unemployed, with jobs. So, I decided to go to the source. The group leading this charge against Wal-Mart has a website titled Wake-Up Wal-Mart. In an attempt to find out what the big problem with Wal-Mart is, I went to the web site and did a little digging. It did not take me long to find enlightenment. In fact, here is a list of the ills of Wal-Mart in the eyes of its detractors:Wal-Mart has a responsibility to all Americans to set the standard for customers, workers and communities, and to help build a better America.The truth is that Wal-Mart has let America down by lowering wages, forcing good paying American jobs overseas, and cutting costs with total disregard for the values that have made this nation greatIn Wal-Mart's America, workers are paid poverty level wages even when they work full-time; In our America, workers are paid a living wage with proper health and retirement benefits.In Wal-Mart's America, wealthy companies shift their health care costs onto tax payers like you and your families; In our America, corporations live up to their responsibility and provide their employees with adequate and affordable health care coverage.In Wal-Mart's America, suppliers are forced to make their goods cheaper even if it means shipping U.S. jobs overseas; In our America, we value U.S. jobs and companies that buy and sell "Made in America."After reading this list, a few blog post by those against Wal-Mart, and a list of groups endorsing the web site, it became abundantly clear why the Left has become anti Wal-Mart. Let’s take a look at what the list is really saying, without the Wal-Mart slant:1. America has the responsibility to take care of workers and communities.2. America has let us down by not insuring higher wages regardless of the cost to business.3. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure all people are paid high wages and granted healthcare coverage at no expense.This is a much shorter list, but I think you get the idea. What is wrong with Wal-Mart? In a nutshell, it celebrates capitalism and personal responsibility. To the Left, this is the unforgivable sin. The argument is simply that Wal-Mart should run in a more socialistic manner. More evidence to the fact can be seen in some of the complaints of Wal-Mart employees who want change. One such comment stated that Wal-Mart will fire you if you get injured at home and can not go to work. Another stated that Wal-Mart no longer accepts doctor’s excuses for absences. In other words, if you do not go to work, you do not get paid, and you may be fired. In the world of the socialists, see France, there is no reason that a worker should have to be responsible to keep their job. It is all becoming clearer. The list of those endorsing the web site also brings clarity to the matter. The largest supporters all happen to be unions. Never would have guessed. So, is it really Wal-Mart that is under attack, or is it what Wal-Mart represents, the American way of life.ChristianityPoliticsSocietyCultureBlog dedicated to God in American culture, and [...]

Is the Democratic Leadership "above" the military?


There are many questions regarding the feelings and beliefs of the members of the Democratic party’s leadership, but one of these questions seems to be reiterated daily. Do the leaders of the party really have a disdain for all things military? It seems that these “leaders” are constantly making statements that lead one to believe they are above the troops, and in essence, believe they are on a higher moral ground. So, in their minds, it is ok to kill unborn babies to defend the reproductive rights of females, but defending the liberty and freedom that gives them the right to spew their rhetoric is immoral? How can I make such a vicious remark about our elected officials that lean to the left? Leys look at a few statements and actions from the Democratic leadership.Charlie Rangle - “I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”Strong words from Rangle, but are they accurate? Unfortunately for Mr. Rangle, he is once again way off base. Then again, the truth has rarely stopped a politician from furthering his or her agenda. In reality, the members of the U.S. Armed forces are more educated and affluent than they have ever been.John Kerry – “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”So, only the uneducated, lazy, and stupid serve in the military? Sounds like disdain to me. Kerry later stated that he simply botched a joke that was aimed at the Commander and Chief, a part of the military. That makes it much better. To define the term hypocrit, John Kerry defended his remarks as true:"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."By insulting our troops, then stating that he was actually insulting the Commander in Chief, was John Kerry not reducing the lives of our soldiers to “raw politics”? Who is telling this guy what to say?Our next quote came before an investigation was conducted, but it furthered the Democratic agenda, so it was stated as a “fact”.John Murtha - "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."Let’s review, our soldiers do not want to defend our country, they are poor, they are backward, they come from slums, they are uneducated, they are lazy, and lastly, they kill innocent civilians in cold blood. All of these statements were made from just three leaders in the Democratic party, I wonder what Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi think about the military. Considering that they represent the two most Secular Progressive states in the Union, there is little doubt.Technorati ProfileChristianityPoliticsSocietyCultureBlog dedicated to God in American culture, and to the massive cultural divide between secular progressives and traditionalists[...]

Media Bias?


One of the most argued points among those on either side of the culture war is whether or not there is a media bias in the United States. It is abundantly clear that anyone who states there is no media bias, primarily in the print media and on the major networks, either has their head in the sand, or they are being dishonest. Another example of this belief by the media that there is no war on Christmas. It seems that the media believes that if they say something often enough, it will be believed as truth. At the same time, there is currently a case before the Supreme Court, brought about by a group of parents in New York, to strike down a ruling by the 3rd circuit court in New York that makes it legal to display Jewish and Muslim symbols, but illegal to display Christian images. The New York Board of Education decided that it is perfectly OK to display a menorah fro Hanukkah and a crescent and star for Ramadan, but that it is unlawful to display a nativity scene for Christmas. You will not likely find coverage of this law suit in the print media, or on the big networks because it is inconvenient to their cause. Another example of media bias is evident in the most widely circulated newspaper in the state of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The editorial page and letters to the editor claim to give representation to the population of the state in the articles and letters they choose. Georgia is the most conservative state in the Union currently, as shown by the recent elections and the candidates chosen, so you would assume that the editorials and letters chosen by the paper would represent that fact. As a well known sports icon commonly states, "Not so fast my friend". In fact, one of the two editorials in today's AJC is based on the authors belief that the United States is the least trustworthy country in the world. A quote from the article states that "We (United States) have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict (late 1700's)". That does not seem like an opinion from a conservative electorate, more like a rallying cry from the "blame America first crowd". If this is true, what does the author make of our protection and liberation of Europe during the World Wars? The letters to the editor, sent in from actual members of the population that is approximately 60% conservative Republicans, is even more lop sided. Do you think that a population that is 2/3 conservative is represented by a Letter to the Editor page that contains five out of six anti-conservative letters? I think the AJC should work on its math. In any event, this is but one example of the bias found in much of the nation's media. So, am I missing it, or is this media bias idea holding water?ChristianityPoliticsSocietyCultureBlog dedicated to God in American culture, and to the massive cultural divide between secular progressives and traditionalists[...]

Is Russia a threat?


The birth of my first child has slowed my writing, for good reason, but there is a question that has troubled me for sometime. It is true that no one country can threaten the United States militarily, and no terrorist organization alone is a significant long term threat (they can do serious damage, but they can not defeat us), but what would happen if a semi-super power joined forces, and sponsered a terror group? Would the partnership create cataclysmic problems for our country? For some time, the actions of Russia, and the relationship between Putin and Iran has caused a bit of concern, but it seems that the true character of the Russian government is coming to the forfront, and along with it, a troublesome relationship with the extremist regime in Tehran. It appears that for the first time since the coldwar, there was a state sponsered assasination this week orchestrated by the Russian government. The victim, an ex-KGB spy, was poisioned with radiation, and he had some very strong words before dying Thursday. Ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of his murder from beyond the grave on Friday, in a statement read out the morning after he died of an unknown poison in a London hospital. Litvinenko left a statement for the world stating the, "You (Putin) may succeed in silencing one man. But a howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life." Along with this development is the continued arms trade between Russia and Iran, and the pressure from Moscow to keep the UN from sanctioning Iran. Why? More evidence was revealed today when it was reported that
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran. So, what will happen with Russia? Is there any cause for concern?

How do you spell evil? A.C.L.U.


The American Civil Liberties Union; based on the name, it sounds like a wonderful organization created to protect the rights of all Americans. However, when you read a comment from the organization's founder regarding its purpose, the truth becomes a bit clearer. When asked about his goals for the organization, and its impact on the United States, founder Roger Baldwin had the following comments: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Communism? It is a bit confusing that the founder equates the protection of Civil Liberties with a final goal of Communism., but to process this information, we should define Communism. Communism is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." of Civil Liberties? Something does not add up, but can we equate the fact that the organization's name is deceiving to the assumption that it is evil? Probably not, but we can look a little deeper into the actions of the ACLU to determine if it is inherently evil. Just like a man, an organization can be judged by its works. First, let us see what Webster's has to say about the term evil. The term is defined as wicked, morally reprehensible, deceiving, harmful actions arising from bad character, or the absence of good (God), or the allowing of evil actions. Well, with its name alone, the ACLU has already hit one of the characteristics of evil, but let's dig a bit deeper. The first characteristic of evil listed is morally reprehensible actions, so we must determine if the ACLU fits into this category. It does not take long to find that the ACLU is a constant defender of actions that the majority of the population consider morally reprehensible. A look at some of the organization's policies discovered the following facts: the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion (not protection) of homosexuality (Policy 264); and the opposition of the rating of music and movies (Policy 18). To stress what I see as the worst of these policies, the ACLU has defended the NAMBLA organization on various occassions. As with the ACLU, much can be learned about NAMBLA by its name alone. The letters stand for: NAtional Man-Boy Love Association, and the organization's main goal is the promotion of sexual relationships between grown men and children, in this case little boys. This definitely fits into the definition of evil, and by supporting such an organization, the ACLU is guilty. If this is not enough evidence to support the idea that the ACLU is evil, let's look a little deeper. Another hallmark of evil is the presence of harmful actions that arise from a lack of character. Returning to the ACLU's stated policies, we find that they also support the opposition of parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); the opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); and the opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262). If it is a pro-abortion measure, the ACLU supports it. In fact, the organization is the nation's leading p[...]

What does Nancy really represent?


Nancy Pelosi was chosen by the House Democrats today as the new Speaker of the House. No real surprise, when the party won the majority position in the House, it was just a formality to make Pelosi the Speaker. So, as representative from San Francisco, what does Nancy represent. The answer to this question is simple, for soild proof of her beliefs, look no farther than the district she represents. One thing we know about San Francisco is that there is a great disdain for all things military in the city. In fact, when questioned about the military, one of the city supervisors told Bill O'reilly that there was no need for a standing army, and that the presence of one only agitates the rest of the world. When questioned about what would happen if there were an attack with no standing army, the member calmly stated that the police and firemen could protect the city. What? That is just one example, so surely this hatred of the military is isolated in the city. This brings us to exhibit two. A few months ago, the Federal Government proposed a military museum in San Francisco. The proposal had a retired ship serving as a walk through museum to celebrate the Navy and it's importance to our country. I think the following excerpt clearly illustrates the matter: "Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco's anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city's Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year." Let's move on to exhibit number three. Earlier this year, the city of San Francisco voted on whether or not Military Recruiters should be allowed into High Schools and Colleges. Can you guess what the results of the vote were? That's right, recruiters were banned by a 60-40 vote. One last bit of evidence just for fun. Earlier this week, the San Francisco Board of Education made the decision to eliminate the Junior ROTC program from its public schools. This decision was handed down even though the program is extremely popular, and it is completely voluntary, or it was completely voluntary. What are these people thinking? So, how does everyone feel about the new Speaker of the House and her district?

The Future of the Courts


From the mouth of a well known Officer in the Secular Progressive Militia, Chuck Schumer, another battle in the Culture War is brought to light. In a recent interview, after stating that the biggest mistake made by the Senate was allowing the appointment of Justice Alito, Schumer had these thoughts, “Judges are the most important, one more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.” From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, and that is just how he likes it. So, what about Alito disturbs Schumer so much? From the quote above, it is clear that Schumer believes that Alito is a conservative, and in the mind of a Secular Progressive like Schumer, this is a character flaw that cannot be forgiven. In a news conference given by Schumer, in response to the nomination of Alito by the Whitehouse, he made it clear that he whole heartedly opposed Alito, and he even used a fear laced message to hammer home his beliefs. This is, of course, a favorite among Secular Progressive techniques. If you scare them, they will come. Speaking on the matter, Schumer compared Alito to the great civil rights warrior, Rosa Parks, in the following manner: "Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place. Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important." So, what is the senator implying? Will Alito completely repeal the work of the Civil Rights Leaders of the past? Will the Voting Rights Act be struck down by this demonic judge to be? Not so fast. In another Secular Progressive move, Schumer compared an issue that is important to him to minority rights in an effort to scare minorities into a frenzy. What is this issue that is so important to Schumer? A look at the questions he constantly posed to Alito during the confirmation process makes it clear, it is abortion. So, was this the last statement made by Schumer to create fear in the streets? He went on to state that "this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come." To finish off his opinion on the matter, Schumer stated this; "As for Judge Alito, there is still a lot to be learned about him. Many of the opinions that he has written over the last 15 years cast real doubt on whether he can be a fair, mainstream, albeit conservative, judge who strives to protect the rights of all Americans...". Mainstream? My only question for Mr. Schumer would be, is partial birth abortion mainstream? I would guess that if it were voted upon by the public, the outcome would not result in the procedure becoming mainstream, so, is Schumer, who wants this procedure to be legal, mainstream? It is relatively clear by the statements of the Congressman that he is in the Secular Progressive Army, and while Alito, a pro-life judge, was confirmed, it could be a while before another pro-life judge becomes part of the high court. As Schumer stated, "Judges are the most important," because they have the power to legislate from the bench. This allows them to go arou[...]

Death to Religion?


Is there a culture war? One aspect of a full fledged culture war pitting Secular Progressives against Traditionalists would be an attack on organized religion. The idea of organized religion, in the United States we can simply insert Christianity, completely assaults the ideals of the Secular Progressive movement. Christianity teaches respect for authority while Secular Progressives despise authority and authority figures. Christianity teaches self control and a strict set of morals while Secular Progressives believe in relativism. Relativism states that no one should be able to call another's actions wrong because they do not fully understand the reasons behind the actions of another. Combine these two tenets of Secular Progressives, and you have anarchy; legalized drugs, rehabilitation instead of punishment, unfettered abortion, income redistribution, social promotion for school children....and so on. These are all prime reasons for the Secular Progressive movement to attack Christianity. Another valid reason for such an attack is that each side of this culture war would be in competition for the hearts and minds of America's children. Why? If you can convince the children to believe a certain way, it is only a matter of time before the country has a new culture. So, is there a war against Christianity in America? One event that points to an answer of yes is the much publicized attack on Christmas last year. Wall-Mart, Lowes, Sears, Best Buy, Target, and many other large retailers decided to forbid their employees from saying Merry Christmas at any time. Another example, removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. A third example, forbidding prayer at public events and at school. A fourth example, removing nativity scenes from public places. A fifth example, the battle over the cross on the hill in San Diego. A sixth example, the battle over the three crosses in the city seal of Los Cruxes. A seventh example, the removal of the Ten Commandments from court houses. This could continue for hours. Most of these assaults are predicated on the mythical separation of church and state that does not even appear in the Constitution. In any event, it appears clear that there is an assault on organized religion in America, Christianity in particular. So, is there a culture war?Quotes from the enlightened:Elton John"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."ChristianityPoliticsSocietyCultureBlog dedicated to God in American culture, and to the massive cultural divide between secular progressives and traditionalists[...]

The Cultural Division


In our country, America, there has arisen a distinct seperation, not between church and state, but between Secular Progressives and Traditionalist. The progressives are dissaisfied with the country as a whole, and wish to change it drastically so that it falls in line more evenly with the quasi-socialist model of Western Europe. In contrast, the traditionalist believes that we are a strong country in our current form, and in essence, the rest of the world should fall in line with us. There is really no middle ground in this debate, only people that refuse to take part in the struggle. Which side are you on? Currently the progressives are vaastly outnumbered, but their "soldiers" are all in participation. On the other hand, the "soldiers" from the other camp are not in unison, in fact, many are not even aware that they are soldiers. That has allowed the active minority to make substantial gains on the silent majority. This is most evident in the news media. Recent studies done by a professor from UCLA have indicated that while around 70% of the country belongs in the camp of the traditionalists, an astounding 85% of the media currently suits up with the progressives. How is this possible? In any event, the real question is whether or not such a struggle exists, or is it just a myth created by one side to round up the troops?