Satan reads how we respond, but he cannot know what you are thinking unless you speak it forth.
He also reads our thoughts by what we say.
He cannot read our minds! Do not give praise to your guilt or your condemnation.
You are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus!
You are accepted in the Beloved!
Apart from Him, you can do nothing. His grace labors greatly in every person who is willing to believe!
Just remind Satan who you are and Whose you are -- and He will flee!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Brokered Convention for the GOP -- Groping and Gasping for a Nominee
Mitt Romney is a lukewarm filet of sole -- elite, effete, yet lacking soul.
Rick Santorum is broccoli overflowing the entire plate -- a lot of roughage, consistent and healthful, but too much of one thing.
Newt Gingrich is a mixed salad of succulent fruit and decayed lettuce leaves -- a mixed meal of good and bad pleasant to only the most discriminating palates.
Ron Paul is bonsai sushi -- an exotic taste with a very limited but very devoted following.
The current selections on the GOP presidential buffet have failed to capture the allegiance of a driven majority.
The unlikely also-ran Rick Santorum has won the top vote in three recent caucuses. Despite intensive campaigning, Romney has failed to capture three states in a row.
If the former Bain Capital capitalist fails to win first place in the Michigan and Arizona primaries later this month, then GOP voters will have signaled their growing disdain for an inconsistent pol who has dressed up his conservative credentials just to place himself highly in the minds -- though not the hearts -- of primary and caucus voters.
Perhaps the GOP will faced its first brokered convention since 1948, Then perhaps a candidate will arise from the GOP infighting and spring forth from the current crop of dissatisfied customers, a candidate who pleases all palates of conservatism -- fiscal, national, social -- and all appeals to all tastes -- moderates, Tea Party stalwarts, independents, and disaffected Democrats.
Rick Santorum is broccoli overflowing the entire plate -- a lot of roughage, consistent and healthful, but too much of one thing.
Newt Gingrich is a mixed salad of succulent fruit and decayed lettuce leaves -- a mixed meal of good and bad pleasant to only the most discriminating palates.
Ron Paul is bonsai sushi -- an exotic taste with a very limited but very devoted following.
The current selections on the GOP presidential buffet have failed to capture the allegiance of a driven majority.
The unlikely also-ran Rick Santorum has won the top vote in three recent caucuses. Despite intensive campaigning, Romney has failed to capture three states in a row.
If the former Bain Capital capitalist fails to win first place in the Michigan and Arizona primaries later this month, then GOP voters will have signaled their growing disdain for an inconsistent pol who has dressed up his conservative credentials just to place himself highly in the minds -- though not the hearts -- of primary and caucus voters.
Perhaps the GOP will faced its first brokered convention since 1948, Then perhaps a candidate will arise from the GOP infighting and spring forth from the current crop of dissatisfied customers, a candidate who pleases all palates of conservatism -- fiscal, national, social -- and all appeals to all tastes -- moderates, Tea Party stalwarts, independents, and disaffected Democrats.
Santorum Resurges -- Primaries Far From Over
Rick Santorum sailed through to first place in the Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado caucuses.
The anti-Romney crowd still wants someone else, and slowly they are coalescing around a consistent yet still imperfect replacement. The flip-flop moderate from Massachusetts is now more than every a gross turn-off to the widespread GOP electorate, and steadily becoming a still-born liability for the general election.
The former New England governor is Obama-Lite to most voters -- the last thing this country needs is a moderate in conservative clothing fleecing the faithful and making off with tepid support at best. How is Romney going to debate the merits of his election in the face of RomneyCare, the blueprint for ObamaCare and the primary reason why the current President must become a one-term wonder.
Newt Gingrich is unstable. Ron Paul is too stable in his unstable policies of radical libertarianism, a mode of political thought which garnered a disappointing third place finish in the Nevada Caucuses.
Perhaps the Pennsylvania Sweater Vest, the also-ran for many months, will become the alternative to capture the GOP nomination. Buttoned down yet consistent and careful, Santorum may pull off the double upset needed to turn this country back to limited government and long-term recovery.
The anti-Romney crowd still wants someone else, and slowly they are coalescing around a consistent yet still imperfect replacement. The flip-flop moderate from Massachusetts is now more than every a gross turn-off to the widespread GOP electorate, and steadily becoming a still-born liability for the general election.
The former New England governor is Obama-Lite to most voters -- the last thing this country needs is a moderate in conservative clothing fleecing the faithful and making off with tepid support at best. How is Romney going to debate the merits of his election in the face of RomneyCare, the blueprint for ObamaCare and the primary reason why the current President must become a one-term wonder.
Newt Gingrich is unstable. Ron Paul is too stable in his unstable policies of radical libertarianism, a mode of political thought which garnered a disappointing third place finish in the Nevada Caucuses.
Perhaps the Pennsylvania Sweater Vest, the also-ran for many months, will become the alternative to capture the GOP nomination. Buttoned down yet consistent and careful, Santorum may pull off the double upset needed to turn this country back to limited government and long-term recovery.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Libertarianism and Persuasion
Congressman Ron Paul has pushed a cause.
Has he demonstrated a capacity to push his candidacy?
He has not fared very well in the last three primary states. Is he running for President, or is he running a prominence for libertarian philosophy?
This seems to the be the greatest liability for those who favor free markets, free enterprise, and competition as opposed to state directives.
Congressman Paul has pushed for a rapid withdrawal of the United States' Armed Forces stationed all over the world. He wants to cut spending, cut waste, and cut government as much as possible. He is a candidate who supports doing less and doing as much with as little as possible, at least according the United States Constitution.
Yet when it comes to advocating his stance and his electability, he also does conspicuously less. He is not a fiery orator. He does not challenge the questionable record of his GOP opponents very solidly, either.
His stance on foreign policy has not persuaded many. There are those who take offense at his reported reserve about the assasination of Yemeni Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last year. Libertarianism to an extreme may cast the Congressman as a politician of integrity, yet also one who has failed to integrate disparate voters throughout the country. Politics is about building consensus, which means consenting to compromise when needed. A philosophy of rigid limitation without recognizing the facts on the ground of a hostile world reflect an out-of-touch naiveté which has failed to ignity all but a core following of youth, armed forces, and disaffected voters who normally disdain the political force. Such ragged elements do not an electoral victory make.
Libertarians struggle with persuading voters that their views are not fanciful, that domestically they may bear fruit without harming constituents who have grown dependent on the state. Freedom is attractive, certainly, but also has its price. For some, it means living without the certainty of a handout from the state. For others, it means the end of a career and benefits subsidized by the overstretched and underfunded state. The pain of breaking away from the state is hard, and many do not relish the necessity of getting less for doing nothing, or getting paid to do very little. Persuading the average voter that less government is better for all requires tapping into the patience of privation, an arugment which most parents are currently failing to make with their own children.
Saying "No" has not been a strong point for federal officials. The argument has won a dutiful following among the youth who long to spend their own money instead of subsidizing the retirement and health care of a rapidly ageing population. However, the elderly vote consistently, and they are not likely any time soon to stem the tide of benefits which they expect to fall towards them.
Has he demonstrated a capacity to push his candidacy?
He has not fared very well in the last three primary states. Is he running for President, or is he running a prominence for libertarian philosophy?
This seems to the be the greatest liability for those who favor free markets, free enterprise, and competition as opposed to state directives.
Congressman Paul has pushed for a rapid withdrawal of the United States' Armed Forces stationed all over the world. He wants to cut spending, cut waste, and cut government as much as possible. He is a candidate who supports doing less and doing as much with as little as possible, at least according the United States Constitution.
Yet when it comes to advocating his stance and his electability, he also does conspicuously less. He is not a fiery orator. He does not challenge the questionable record of his GOP opponents very solidly, either.
His stance on foreign policy has not persuaded many. There are those who take offense at his reported reserve about the assasination of Yemeni Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last year. Libertarianism to an extreme may cast the Congressman as a politician of integrity, yet also one who has failed to integrate disparate voters throughout the country. Politics is about building consensus, which means consenting to compromise when needed. A philosophy of rigid limitation without recognizing the facts on the ground of a hostile world reflect an out-of-touch naiveté which has failed to ignity all but a core following of youth, armed forces, and disaffected voters who normally disdain the political force. Such ragged elements do not an electoral victory make.
Libertarians struggle with persuading voters that their views are not fanciful, that domestically they may bear fruit without harming constituents who have grown dependent on the state. Freedom is attractive, certainly, but also has its price. For some, it means living without the certainty of a handout from the state. For others, it means the end of a career and benefits subsidized by the overstretched and underfunded state. The pain of breaking away from the state is hard, and many do not relish the necessity of getting less for doing nothing, or getting paid to do very little. Persuading the average voter that less government is better for all requires tapping into the patience of privation, an arugment which most parents are currently failing to make with their own children.
Saying "No" has not been a strong point for federal officials. The argument has won a dutiful following among the youth who long to spend their own money instead of subsidizing the retirement and health care of a rapidly ageing population. However, the elderly vote consistently, and they are not likely any time soon to stem the tide of benefits which they expect to fall towards them.
On Commanding Respect
David the Great King commanded respect because he was God's "Beloved" (the English translation of his name)
After he presented himself as a servant to the Lord's backslidden anointed, David declared:
"What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (1 Samuel 17:26)
David recognized that Goliath - an uncircumcised -- did not have a covenant with the Lord. David did! Right away, David knew and believed that he had nothing to fear!
When King Saul questioned whether David should go up to take down the Giant, David championed all that the Lord had done for him:
"Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:
"And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
"Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God." (1 Samuel 17: 34-36)
Now, most people have read this passage and therefore assume that it was David's persistence and prowess as a shepherd that would help him to best Goliath of Gath. But David expounds on the true reason for his confidence:
"The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee." (1 Samuel 17:37)
David trusted in the Lord to succeed, not his own efforts. He stood on the love that God had for him, not his own power.
Everyone of us commands respect to the extent that we grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord's love for us! When we have the stability of knowing that we are accepted as God's Beloved, a right conferred on every individuals who believes on the Lord, from Father Abraham to the present day, then all our challenges and all fears melt away.
After he presented himself as a servant to the Lord's backslidden anointed, David declared:
"What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (1 Samuel 17:26)
David recognized that Goliath - an uncircumcised -- did not have a covenant with the Lord. David did! Right away, David knew and believed that he had nothing to fear!
When King Saul questioned whether David should go up to take down the Giant, David championed all that the Lord had done for him:
"Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:
"And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
"Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God." (1 Samuel 17: 34-36)
Now, most people have read this passage and therefore assume that it was David's persistence and prowess as a shepherd that would help him to best Goliath of Gath. But David expounds on the true reason for his confidence:
"The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee." (1 Samuel 17:37)
David trusted in the Lord to succeed, not his own efforts. He stood on the love that God had for him, not his own power.
Everyone of us commands respect to the extent that we grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord's love for us! When we have the stability of knowing that we are accepted as God's Beloved, a right conferred on every individuals who believes on the Lord, from Father Abraham to the present day, then all our challenges and all fears melt away.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Daniel Radcliffe and Alcoholism
Daniel Radcliffe of "Harry Potter" fame has admitted that he was drunk on the job while filming while filming the billion dollar story book franchise.
We do not need to read any more sob stories about the monied and storied youth who find their way into terrible addiction on their flights to fame and fortune.
Wealth and fame do not complete the lack that dogs every man. Only God can fill that lack, only the Gospel of Jesus Christ delivers the too-god-to-be-true news of eternal life, health, and wealth for those who suffer here and now.
These reports should be more than enough to dissuade people from the empty notion that getting more, getting bigger, or making the most of oneself in this life is enough to satisfy the eternity in our hearts.
We do not need to read any more sob stories about the monied and storied youth who find their way into terrible addiction on their flights to fame and fortune.
Wealth and fame do not complete the lack that dogs every man. Only God can fill that lack, only the Gospel of Jesus Christ delivers the too-god-to-be-true news of eternal life, health, and wealth for those who suffer here and now.
These reports should be more than enough to dissuade people from the empty notion that getting more, getting bigger, or making the most of oneself in this life is enough to satisfy the eternity in our hearts.
Regarding Prager's Take on Jews and Christians
I am appalled at the stereotypes circulating among a number of readers regarding Christians' attitudes towards the Jews.
I despise anti-semitism, but why has no one spoken out against the anti-Christian mentality which lazily assumes that every Christian believes that the Jews are Christ-killers? Granted, there are evangelists whose fiery rhetoric has inspired dread and disdain, but no one should despise the Gospel because someone preaches it poorly or because certain preachers are motivated more by personal gain as opposed to personal conviction and expansive salvation for all who are willing to believe.
The Christian evangelical community desires to share the gospel, which in fact respects the Torah and the Prophets. Contrary to harassed and incomplete hermeneutics, the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of John, does not attack the Jews as a whole, but rather the religious leaders of Ancient Rome, those who crucified Christ and brought many of their people under political and financial bondage. Have we already forgotten that Jesus Christ was a Jew, a Rabbi who lived under law until His crucifixion? Have we also forgotten that the first Christians were in fact Jews, and contrary to the current trend of welcoming Jews into the Christian community, the first struggled to reconcile the expansion of Gentile believers into their community?
On the relationship between evangelical Christians and Jews, Columnist Dennis Prager has demonstrated masterful maturity in the past. For example, he respected fiery Ann Coulter's charge that every Jew should become complete and convert to receive Jesus, whom many Christians attest to be the Messiah Jews are still waiting for. Prager does not share her beliefs, but neither did he denigrate her for asserting her convictions. They two commentators carry on a professional composure with each other to this day.
Jews have nothing to fear from Christians as a whole. Just as only a few Jews were complicit in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, so too only a minority of Christians are complicit in anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist rhetoric and programs which do not respect the Jewish People.
Besides, why are so many Rabbis concerned about the growing number of Jews who are confessing that Jesus is the Messiah? Is it perhaps that the teachings of the Torah manifest this faith? Or is it that current Jewish religious communities are failing to offer something substantial beyond tradition and community for this life?
I despise anti-semitism, but why has no one spoken out against the anti-Christian mentality which lazily assumes that every Christian believes that the Jews are Christ-killers? Granted, there are evangelists whose fiery rhetoric has inspired dread and disdain, but no one should despise the Gospel because someone preaches it poorly or because certain preachers are motivated more by personal gain as opposed to personal conviction and expansive salvation for all who are willing to believe.
The Christian evangelical community desires to share the gospel, which in fact respects the Torah and the Prophets. Contrary to harassed and incomplete hermeneutics, the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of John, does not attack the Jews as a whole, but rather the religious leaders of Ancient Rome, those who crucified Christ and brought many of their people under political and financial bondage. Have we already forgotten that Jesus Christ was a Jew, a Rabbi who lived under law until His crucifixion? Have we also forgotten that the first Christians were in fact Jews, and contrary to the current trend of welcoming Jews into the Christian community, the first struggled to reconcile the expansion of Gentile believers into their community?
On the relationship between evangelical Christians and Jews, Columnist Dennis Prager has demonstrated masterful maturity in the past. For example, he respected fiery Ann Coulter's charge that every Jew should become complete and convert to receive Jesus, whom many Christians attest to be the Messiah Jews are still waiting for. Prager does not share her beliefs, but neither did he denigrate her for asserting her convictions. They two commentators carry on a professional composure with each other to this day.
Jews have nothing to fear from Christians as a whole. Just as only a few Jews were complicit in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, so too only a minority of Christians are complicit in anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist rhetoric and programs which do not respect the Jewish People.
Besides, why are so many Rabbis concerned about the growing number of Jews who are confessing that Jesus is the Messiah? Is it perhaps that the teachings of the Torah manifest this faith? Or is it that current Jewish religious communities are failing to offer something substantial beyond tradition and community for this life?
President Obama and Obesity
First lady Michelle Obama has started another cause -- she wants kids to stop being fat. Giving herself another reason to be on TV, Ms. Obama is rallying communities to fight childhood obesity.
Instead of focusing on this nation's children, she ought to direct her efforts of cutting the fat toward the current president, who also has an obesity problem: Big Government getting Bigger.
Do we really need one more government initiative telling people how to live right? The government currently does not even mind its own business. Instead of limiting itself to the rule of law and the enforcement of contracts, the federal government has expanded itself through initiatives and mandates which threaten the health and well-being of this country. Beyond protecting our rights, securing our borders, stabilizing the nation's monetary system, a government that grows into the domain of the states and the people has no business telling individual citizens what to eat and how much to exercise from day to day.
Instead of focusing on this nation's children, she ought to direct her efforts of cutting the fat toward the current president, who also has an obesity problem: Big Government getting Bigger.
Do we really need one more government initiative telling people how to live right? The government currently does not even mind its own business. Instead of limiting itself to the rule of law and the enforcement of contracts, the federal government has expanded itself through initiatives and mandates which threaten the health and well-being of this country. Beyond protecting our rights, securing our borders, stabilizing the nation's monetary system, a government that grows into the domain of the states and the people has no business telling individual citizens what to eat and how much to exercise from day to day.
Michelle Obama and Obesity
The first lady is taking first place when it comes to fighting obesity.
Childhood obesity is a growing problem (pun intended), but teachers and schools cannot solve this problem.
No matter how many people may struggle with this health problem, it remains an individual problem. Despite the growing, widespread nature of the issue in schools, telling students what they may or may not eat will not deal with the underlying matter. Students are eating over something -- perhaps a world that gives them so much, yet still leaves them yearning for something more.
The parents hold a greater responsibility when it comes to the health and nutrition of their children. For many of them, the need to be accepted by their kids has hindered them from giving their children what they need as opposed to what they clamor for.
Instead of rewarding young people with food for a job well done, invite them to participate in activities which they find rewarding. Regulating the food that they eat, however, will not solve the greater issue of obesity among youth today. Even Los Angeles Unified is facing the dreaded reality of the black market on campuses, in which students now smuggle in junk food and sell these goods to the highest bidder.
Instead of cracking down on children's poor eating habits, remind them of their worth and potential regardless of their appearance. Remind them that health is a choice which they get to make every day. Rather than forcing them to obsess over what they eat, direct their focus to worthy activities, to non food-related interests. A sedentary lifestyles sometimes begins with the unbelief that there is little worth doing, or that life holds little worth for them. We need to fight these follies, not withhold food from them by force.
Childhood obesity is a growing problem (pun intended), but teachers and schools cannot solve this problem.
No matter how many people may struggle with this health problem, it remains an individual problem. Despite the growing, widespread nature of the issue in schools, telling students what they may or may not eat will not deal with the underlying matter. Students are eating over something -- perhaps a world that gives them so much, yet still leaves them yearning for something more.
The parents hold a greater responsibility when it comes to the health and nutrition of their children. For many of them, the need to be accepted by their kids has hindered them from giving their children what they need as opposed to what they clamor for.
Instead of rewarding young people with food for a job well done, invite them to participate in activities which they find rewarding. Regulating the food that they eat, however, will not solve the greater issue of obesity among youth today. Even Los Angeles Unified is facing the dreaded reality of the black market on campuses, in which students now smuggle in junk food and sell these goods to the highest bidder.
Instead of cracking down on children's poor eating habits, remind them of their worth and potential regardless of their appearance. Remind them that health is a choice which they get to make every day. Rather than forcing them to obsess over what they eat, direct their focus to worthy activities, to non food-related interests. A sedentary lifestyles sometimes begins with the unbelief that there is little worth doing, or that life holds little worth for them. We need to fight these follies, not withhold food from them by force.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Daniels Pushes Right-to-Work
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has signaled once again his support of free enterprise and free markets.
He has signed into law "right-to-work" legislation, which allows employees to received representation without having to pay labor dues.
This development has value for a number of reasons:
1. Employees should not have to pay to maintain a job.
2. Employees should not be forced to subsidize candidates and causes that please the union, but which offend the worker forced to pay dues.
3. Employers who do not have to tangle with an active union would better improve their profit margin and the well-being of the consumers.
Here is another reason why Governor Daniels must reconsider his decision not to run for President. There is still time, Governor Daniels. You have demonstrated time and again your commitment to promoting the well-being of the state and the taxpayer. You have maintained your poise in the face of Democratic encroachment and union machinations. Without reserve, you have cancelled federal funding to Planned Parenthood in your state. Your leadership at the state level would benefit the entire country.
He has signed into law "right-to-work" legislation, which allows employees to received representation without having to pay labor dues.
This development has value for a number of reasons:
1. Employees should not have to pay to maintain a job.
2. Employees should not be forced to subsidize candidates and causes that please the union, but which offend the worker forced to pay dues.
3. Employers who do not have to tangle with an active union would better improve their profit margin and the well-being of the consumers.
Here is another reason why Governor Daniels must reconsider his decision not to run for President. There is still time, Governor Daniels. You have demonstrated time and again your commitment to promoting the well-being of the state and the taxpayer. You have maintained your poise in the face of Democratic encroachment and union machinations. Without reserve, you have cancelled federal funding to Planned Parenthood in your state. Your leadership at the state level would benefit the entire country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)