The Republican party is an old wineskin, and the idea that by voting for it we can get new wine into that old wineskin is preposterous beyond imagination.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
5 Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
7 To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
8 To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
9 To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Books tempt me like nothing else in the world.
I wanted to confess that, once again, books have kept me from accomplishing things in my life that held more importance. About this time last year, I stumbled across a seep blue book that I decided looked interesting. It was a fiction fantasy, but the kind that don't really interest me....like LOTR. I enjoy C.S. Lewis fantasy, because he fills them with scriptural principles, often direct verse references, and they are increasingly more applicable and convicting in the sphere of my life.
This book (I later found out) was written by a teenaged homeschooler. It began with a "middle earth" type land, and of course mythical creatures, familiar and made-up/created. I was immediately immersed in the complex patterns and plot behind the book. It intrigued me with new concepts (like reading other peoples minds, and allowing others to speak to you through their minds without speaking) and strange worldviews.
I found out that the second book was also published, and devoured that in less time.
The books engaged me as no other books have for a long time. In the second book there is a concerted effort to bring themes together, but I am still wondering as to what the point is on religion, and morality. As far as "middle earth" fantasy goes, there is magic and powers and dragons and spells and evil spirits. There are numerous "gods" and an inordinate focus on the practices and beliefs of the devotees thereof. So, I suppose that the writer will be trying to persuade one religion over the other because the protagonist is as yet godless and struggling between the religious/non-religious/pantheistic/atheistic view of all those surrounding him.
It interests me how two distinct beings/souls are portrayed as being inextricably intertwined and melded. The constant banter and communion that forms their relationship encourages me to try harder with the relationships I have, because they can be rewarding, and are even more rewarding for being fought for. (yes, I ended that with a conjunction....pay attention!)
I revel in the mass of cultures, costumes, histories, customs, and pleasantries that fill the book. I ADORE (I found out through online research) the writer's intermingling of known languages, terms, etc. The amount of different languages that are melded into names, places, sentences and pronunciation makes me know that I hold a classic in my hands. I have not, as yet, decided to study, grammar-i-tize and piece apart the sentence structures, etc, because (like I said) I really don't have time for such things...
Which brings me back to where I was: reading this, instead of doing school. But, as I did weep buckets of tears (which I haven't done over a book in a while...well, a new book that is, I always cry when Walter Blythe dies, but that's an old book) and as I was careful not to let the book overwhelm my sense of morality (yes, I heard about his father-not-really-being-his-father, but I didn't want it to be true) and of course the knowledge that it is all fantasy, although expertly created fantasy.
So, for the best way of making all this understandable, I would recommend spending a couple days perusing the Inheritance Cycle.
(Ps....last bit-- most importantly-- I own an unending debt of gratitude for being allowed to read the third book before I had thought possible by some very dear people, which also freed me from being distracted by the anticipation of the secrets contained in it)
(Oh, and the 3rd book....is perfectly named. My siblings can attest that when we chanced upon a bookstore, and I recognized the art/cover and knew what it was, I could not stop talking about how wonderful it was.)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
I noticed that no one usually does any farther than:
I was talking about it to my sister, and for some reason pronounced a name that stopped both of us and made us laugh our heads off. There MUST be a funny pun about it. See, the person that Deborah gives counsel to is named....yeah....Barak.
I usually pronounce it (bear-uk), but for some reason I said (bar-uk).....which....is rather a household name at this point.....
Anyhow, I realized some years ago that Deborah really didn't give Barak any NEW information:
See, she had to REMIND him.....because God had ALREADY told him, and he apparently had not obeyed. (and only three not-so-used translations have it different. Every major version agrees with the "past perfect" verb tense)
Also, due to his cowardice/fear/whatever, he also refused Deborah's reminding. Therefore, God had to use her as a whip to get the guy moving. And, God took away from Barak any praise or glory relating to the victory.
So....Deborah could have been a very common-sense person, who God used to remind a very cowardly man that he needed to get done his bellyaching and get moving.
Also a thought for today: If Palin is Deborah...is McCain Barack.....er...Barak?
Thursday, October 09, 2008
I re-checked their site two weeks ago, and asked them to also place Chuck Baldwin on the list, as he fit 100% with their pro-life, pro-marriage outlook....and I received this letter in response:
Greetings from ( ______) and thank you for your e-mail. I consider it a privilege to reply on behalf of our staff.
We appreciate your taking a moment to share your perspective on (our views), of Senator McCain's candidacy. While your feedback is valued, I'm afraid we're not in a position to comment on his political views past what he's communicated. As for the possibility of addressing Chuck Baldwin's candidacy, while we realize it may be disappointing to hear, we've chosen to focus our efforts on providing information about the stances held by the candidates remaining in the race who are most likely to gain the presidency.
Again, thanks for contacting us, Jennifer. We trust you will join us in praying for our great nation at this critical juncture in our history. God bless you!
Needless to say, I was shocked, enraged, and highly put-off by this answer, and although with a feeling of christian love towards them, I believe it to be the most bigoted statement of all for a "conservative" group/organization who purports to be moral and God-serving.
I sent them this response: (yes, I prayed about it, and it was at least 24 hours before I responded, allowing my thoughts to be refined, and not so angry/hateful)
I did learn something from you, though, when I read your response. Here dumb little me thought that this election was about the future course of our nation. I thought it was about "values voters", and "traditional family values", and Biblical morality. I THOUGHT it was about saving the lives of yet-unborn babies.
How stupid of me. All that REALLY matters is getting the less-worse end of a popularity contest. As you put it--SO well-- "focus our efforts on...the candidates..most likely to gain the presidency".
Thank you for allowing me to see behind/through your rhetoric and teachings to the REAL goal.
Anyhow, you can be sure that I will never again listen to them/their material/their speaking with an unbiased mind. All I will hear is "most likely to win", and know that when (as one of their people said) they talk about values and family and abortion and America.....they gave up their convictions on the altar of "most likely to win" and that's all that mattered.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
As OS has been saying, the draft is my "big issue". I see it as a real danger, and one that is most definitely inevitable. With most Americans caught in the web of the hopeless one-but-two party system, our future President is destined to be a socialist with aims of carrying on the NAU and a globalist agenda.
With this globalist agenda, there will be a definite "american" tang, as the globalism will be with the goal of providing democracy and "freedom" to other downtrodden nations and peoples. Included in this scheme, will most definitely be the need for military force to put down what factions in these countries might want to resist a super-power telling them how to run their countries.
Because not enough American youth will want to volunteer to die for this globalist/terrorist agenda, there will be a need to force them. This, friends is called the draft. It entails tearing young potential from its place in the world and forcing it to sweat, bleed, and die for "The Cause". Although not explicitly stated, this violates the 5th ammendment.
"nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Through the draft, one is deprived of their liberty, their property (themselves), and possibly their life. Also, wars are to be defensive. Therefore, Americans should only have to fight when they are attacked unprovoked. Even then I don't believe that we will be lacking volunteers, because their fighting and dying will be in order to protect AMERICA from harm and their families from the dominance of a foreign nation.
John McCain will most definitely institute the draft. He plans (outspokenly) to continue American oppression of foreign peoples and forcing them to be free and democratic. He has openly proposed war on Iran, and undoubtedly will continue our occupation of over 120 countries around the world. This will require MASSIVE manpower. It can only be obtained through conscription.
Some links: (although a simple google search will give you more than you can handle)
In the case where so-called "conservative America" fails to drum up enough half-hearted support for McCain, and Obama wins the office (which most people say will happen no-matter-what), he will probably be better, in this case. Obama is a regular, peace/disarmament democrat, and he will probably pursue globalism with more gusto, but less militarily. I highly doubt that he will cease occupation of foreign countries, or that he will "end the war in Iraq", but he will be slow to begin a new military effort elsewhere, or to put the draft in place. Should he decide to use force, he will HAVE to use conscription, just like McCain
In a closely balanced election, with the outcome still very much in doubt, Obama hopes to win the support of the real decision-makers—the topmost levels of the financial, political and military elite. Only a Democrat, he is suggesting, with the smokescreen of “equal sacrifice” and “fairness,” can provide the millions of recruits for the US military machine that will be required for wars against countries such as Iran, Russia and China.
As a woman, the 1900's would have blushed to see me going out to fight. But I am completely sure that if any draft is instated, women will be required to go as well, lest the feminists raise such a hue and cry that all capitol hill be overwhelmed. Note wh "all persons" on the bill linked above.
I shall end with a quote from a dissenting Senator in 1917, when Wilson decided to send American young men to die for a territorial European war that was only "new" in regards to it's massive death rates. (trenches had given Japan the edge over the giant Russia only 15 years before, and machine guns and airplanes were being readily used more and more in little border battles which no one bothers to report because they were so common. Also, european wars had been going on for centuries...some actually having stretched that long--ie.the Hundred yers war)America at War: WWI
"In the emotional fervor that followed the declaration of war on April 6, many young men rushed to volunteer for the armed forces. Yet, it was only a faction of the number needed. After hearing three years of stories about the horrors of trench warfare, it is hardly surprising that more men did not join up.
President Wilson proposed national conscription, otherwise known as a ‘draft’. Many members of Congress objected to the bill. The speaker of the House asserted that there was ‘little difference between the conscript and the convict.’"
Friday, October 03, 2008
"World War I gave birth to a centralized bureaucracy of unprecedented size. New federal agencies assumed unheard-of power. The War Industries Board, for example, took over raw materials and production and created new industries to meet war demands. The War Trade Board controlled imports and exports. The Federal Fuel Administration supervised efficient use of resources like coal and oil by industry and the public. Even the railroads were taken over and run by the government.
The Federal Food Administration was created to insure adequate food supplies for military needs and to send agricultural aid to the Allies. It monitored farm production and regulated prices. It asked Americans to plant "victory gardens" and observe "wheatless" and "meatless" days.
All this was the United States first experiment with a government-directed economy. Some of the experts who staffed these emergency boards would later use the valuable experience they gained to fight the economic Depression of the 1930’s.
Public opinion, an intangible but important resource, also had to be mobilized. This was the mission of the most controversial of the new government agencies.
The Committee on Public Information hired hundreds of writers and artists who turned their talents to wartime propaganda. Pro-war leaflets were widely circulated. The committee also sent skilled orators around the country to make speeches intended to rally the nationalistic emotions of the American people."
And "In spite of these efforts [buying war bonds, banning German from schools, etc] many German-American citizens were harassed. Thousands of German Americans, who were not yet naturalized U.S. citizens were arrested and placed in internment camps.
But what happened to all these agencies?
War Industries Board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Industries_Board
WIB was disbanded
War Trade Board:
WTB gave all its powers to the Department of State
Federal Fuel Administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Fuel_Administration
It looks like FFA is still around, just not necessary as much anymore
Federal Food Administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
FFA has no information that I can find on google, only the Food and Drug Administration. Maybe they are/were the same thing.
Committee on Public Information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
CPI also seems to have been disbanded.