Thursday, December 30, 2004


Just wanted to wish everyone a safe and very happy new year. I pray that God will truly bless and keep all of you out there who read this blog. I started this blog as a means for voicing my opinion, telling of God's truth, and pointing out error when I see it. I am one that enjoys a good debate every once in a while and this blog fills that need. This was my first year blogging and I stuck to it and am thankful for it. I hope 2005 will be a year of more blogging and more growth for me. I couldn't grow if not for those that comment and send emails, you are much appreciated. Your insight, opinions, and challenges are always welcome for they cause me to question my own insight, challenge my own opinions, and really think about what I believe in. For that, I am very much grateful. I hope that you have learned from me as much as I have learned from all of you out there in bloggerland.

God bless and Thank you.

Wednesday, December 29, 2004


I was reading an article on by Wendy McElroy regarding a Washington Post article about violence against pregnant women called "Pregnancy and Homicide: The Known Toll" What really got me thinking was her response, not really the article itself. In the Fox article she refers to the National Institute of Justice study (NIJ) that agreed with the assertion that "couples living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, facing job instability and economic distress are at higher levels of probabilities of violence." I checked out the PDF link of the report and it seems to draw a conclusion that low income and even poverty leads to crime. Personally, I don't believe this but it does beg the question of if it is true as so many studies seem to imply this including the aforementioned.

According to this brief of the report, no efforts were made to examine and measure the individual and couples personal backgrounds, belief systems and practices. Only their job status, economic stability and neighborhood economy was taken into account. The report implies that the violent behavior is a result of the couples economic status. How so? A mighty flawed conclusion don't you think? Very one sided, no? Could it be that the economic status whether good or bad is a result of pre-existing behavior? What about historical data in relation to the Black community and White community? Is this a new phenomenon or has it been taking place for an extended length of time?

The NIJ report really doesn't do woman any real justice for it seems to leave out the actual cuases of violence against women, which by the way, I would contend is not economic instability, for how do they account for violence occurring in financially stable households? While the stats are lower, they still show that it occurs. Shouldn't the focus be on preventing all violence against all women, not just poor or rich? I would agree that low or no income can contribute to an already stressful situation as an added burden to an already unstable relationship. This report, doesn't speak to the real cause of violence against women and especially pregnant women in particular. If studies like this are to be done, there needs to be a truthful evaluation of the dynamics of a given relationship, i.e., were the spouses previously incarcerated? Did either party grow up in a two parent home? Were they married at any point during their relationship or just living together? Were there children involved other than the unborn? Did they attend church, synagogue, mosk regularly? Are the extended family, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, a regular staple in the couples lives? Was the violence provoked through acts of violence stemming from the woman? And I could go on and on. One big question that apparently wasn't asked was whether or not there was an abortion involved or any other highly emotional "choices" or incidents that could have lead up to said violence? None of these questions are asked or answered and all of them can and in most cases do contribute to the success or failure of a marital or live-in relationship and can agitate one towards violence. According to a Department Of Justice on-going study as reported by the Heritage Foundation, married women fair far better and have lesser risk of violence than unmarried women, as well as the children. Shouldn't this data have been included in such a report by the NIJ? Yet, this aspect of male/female relationships was not addressed in the brief, only economic status. Given that the focus is on economic status anyway, wouldn't it behoove the NIJ to address this particular data in support of marriage and encourage policy makers, especially those involved with regulating welfare benefits, to move to alter existing policies that look to undermine the institution of marriage, which in turn could lead to less violence against women and children in poorer communities? Yet, there is no connection made here, which seems to be an obvious one to make.

I agree that the Donna St. George article in the Washington Post completely misses the mark as McElroy's critique points out. One example is a comment given by Pat Brown, a criminal profiler; she states:
At any age, "pregnancy is a huge, life-altering event for both the male and the female,"... "It is certainly a more dangerous moment in life. You are escalating people's responsibilities and curtailing their freedoms."
Curtailing their freedoms? Who is the "you" in that statement and what freedoms are being curtailed? Shouldn't the notion of losing certain "freedoms" have been considered prior to getting pregnant? Why is the fear of responsibility all of a sudden an excuse for violence? These articles seem more like an attempt to paint pregnancy as a dangerous choice for women, almost as if to dissuade one from getting pregnant or even having a relationship with a man, but is that the real solution? The rest of her statement is quite telling though as she actually touches on a key lesson to be learned regarding the new mores of our culture. Brown goes on:
...If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away.
This is my major problem with St. George, her premise only shows to bring attention to the issue of violence against pregnant women at the expense of painting male/female relationships with a broad brush, as if it is a matter of the women getting pregnant and somehow the man immediately gets scared and kills her. She stays away from pointing to factors that potentially lead to said violence such as the instability of the homes that the younger men and women came from, economic stresses, attitudes toward family and belief systems as well as whether or not the men who commit these murders have prior criminal records.

In addition, she and the many so called health experts and studies cited in the two articles so far don't bring to light the real and blindingly obvious issue involving violence against pregnant women and women in general, a lack of moral character among the men committing such acts. She and those interviewed seem to miss the mark as indicated here in talking about the high risk of violence among pregnant teenagers:
"It's something we need to look into more," said author Cara Krulewitch, wondering: "Is there a vulnerability factor we don't know about? Is there a social factor?"
Is there a social factor? What causes violence in anyone? I contend it is a lack of moral character. What leads to strong or at least acceptable moral character in our society? A stable upbringing in a two parent home, good life choices, a perceived or real commitment to the spouse (i.e. marriage), regular and consistent practice of character building activities, i.e. attending church, volunteering, organized sports and other types of positive group affiliations, which ironically, will probably be found prevalent in older, more affluent, and higher income earning households. Although I do agree with the article in that more needs to be done in documenting such incidents yet when the data is gathered, there needs to be a profoundly honest look at the facts in light of what we already know is true and works.

Overall, this seems like another blind attempt to paint a negative image of male/female relationships, pregnancy and ultimately family in our society. Isn't it ironic that such a strong front is made on behalf of these slain women, including strumming the heartstrings by giving names of mothers and the unborn, their ages, dreams, aspirations and quotes from family members, yet no stink is made over the amount of abortions performed each year? It seems more as an attempt to romanticize single motherhood rather than present an honest look at a potentially growing and gruesome trend.

Interesting though that some of the women mentioned in the article had had prior abortions before deciding to keep the last child. If we want to truly calculate the amount of violence against women, why not include the data from Planned Parenthood so that we can get a true picture? Isn't abortion, especially partial birth abortion, among the most violent acts committed against women and children? Unfortunately it is one that is pits mother against child. We consider a pregnant women's fetus to be a victim of homicide, yet in an abortion procedure, it isn't even human.

The new revelation of the increase in violence towards pregnant women(notice how the word mother isn't used) should be no surprise to those who understand the nature of man. The more we devalue the weakest among us, the less valuable we all become (i.e., only as strong as the weakest link) and whether you agree or not, women are the weaker vessel. They are the next logical step in being receptors of violence, even from other women. The next two WP articles in this series will be interesting to read indeed, hopefully they will actually hit at the heart of the causes of these unfortunate series of events and discontinue the disingenuous strumming of the heartstrings.

Thursday, December 23, 2004


To all who read this blog whether you agree with me or not I wish you a Merry Christmas. I thank you for coming to this site and reading and thank you to those who post messages and send emails, it is much appreciated.

This year I am looking at the coming holiday with a new fervor and appreciation for what it really means and what it is actually about. Given all of the so called controversy over the use of the spiritual terms of Christmas and it's symbols, I think this is a necessary point. We who are men and women of God through the salvation of Jesus Christ must be ever vigilant in living and speaking for God in our everyday living. We must push ourselves to never waver or falter on our responsibilities, both natural and spiritual. Next week the emphasis will go from Christmas to New Years and the whole banter around making year end resolutions for the following year will be the center topic. Let us move beyond empty year-end resolutions and start right now in making a change. Lets turn away from those bad habits that cause us to doubt, procrastinate or simply be lazy and lets start being single minded and focused on truly living what we believe. I've heard it said that change happens in an instant, a single moment, we move from sinner to saint, from evil to good, this is the power of God and the ability He has given us in the natural world is similar. We are able to choose, in an instant, whether we are going to continue along the same path, walking in circles, or if we are going to start being active Christians being a force for good within our communities. This is not just my resolution for the end of the year, it is my life goal, to live for God. To do exactly what he is calling me to do. I pray that you will do the same, make living for God your life goal. Make all that you do, say, and think be for His glorification.

For those men out there especially, I am compelling you to begin to stand up in your communities, churches, jobs, and schools to speak up for God's truth. Stand up for what is right, be real men and not cowards. Do not let this world define what you are but be defined by what God says you are. You, who believe on our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, are men of God, mighty warriors armed with the two-edged sword of truth, that being God's immutable, unchangeable, infallible Word. Use it mightily, with authority and purpose and do not be ashamed of the gospel for in it there is power and salvation for those who believe.

I had a conversation with a cousin of mine who is a member of the Merchant Marines. He works on oil tankers doing maintenance and repair. Needless to say he has traveled all over the world over the past several years. We got into a discussion about the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the states. He told me that he has seen some of the sufferers first hand and it is gruesome. He then went on to tell me that he believes it is the "white mans" fault for bringing that disease over there. Amazing! I immediately disagreed with him and told him that we cannot put the blame for the spread of an STD on one group of people, who for all intents and purposes, has nothing to do with the current crisis. I then shared with him the truth, that AIDS is rampant in Africa and this country as well because of one simple truth, the lack of moral character. Much of the spread of AIDS in Africa is perpetuated through the sinful actions of the people and their leaders, i.e., corrupt governments who neglect the needs of their own people, men raping young virgins believing that by doing so one can be healed from disease, as well as a continued emphasis on contraception rather than abstinence. Here in the U.S.A. it is the same, too much emphasis on "safe sex" and an all too liberal perception of sex and marriage. Needless to say, he did not agree. I say this to point to an unfortunate fact, there are still many men, especially Black men, who do not know the truth. Who continue to perpetuate the group think of blaming society on a whole rather than holding individuals accountable for their own actions. I know that I didn't change his mind from that one conversation, but I do know that a seed was planted and I earnestly pray that more good men of God will do the same when confronted with false ideology. We must speak the truth in love, not hating or resenting but hoping that the power of God will take hold on those who hear.

I hope your holiday will be warm, festive and full of God's blessings! Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 08, 2004


This is my response to an article written by Mike Straka of Fox News, for his daily Grrr! Column. He commented about the current situation in Major League Baseball and steroid usage. Usually I pretty much believe he is spot on with alot of his Grrrs but this time I wasn't to keen on some of what he had to say so I decided to respond with a very long-winded Grrr response email which he probably won't even read, which is fine, I am sure he is a busy guy. I am also sure that he considers long emails a major Grrr for him as well. But, I just can't let things like this go un-addressed and I had a lot to say, thats just the way I am I guess, not a very pithy guy I suppose.

While your commentary on steroid use in baseball was quite passionate, it was also very misguided. It is definately wrong and unfair for these guys to be using a known illegal and dangerous substance and they should definately receive the blame for it. They should be held fully accountable for their own actions and choices as should anyone who supplied them with the drugs, as well as anyone in a position to do something about it who may have turned a blind eye to the whole thing. You asked us if we would still want to watch athletes who look like us, my answer is yes, I would. I would love to see a guy like me, not in just physicalities, but in character as well, playing professional baseball, football or basketball. That is what the lure is for anyone who does follow sports, movies, and video games. We project our own personal sensibilities onto those people because we see a little bit of our own selves, our desires and aspirations, in them.
So, while it was nice to point out the shallowness of our society on a whole, that is no excuse to allow these men and women to get away with their poor choices. The comparisons you made between steroids giving an edge and filtering technology in music, or plastic surgery are disingenuous, neither of these things are illegal or immoral, nor are they used in a way that cheats someone else of victory. Steroids are both illegal and immoral, and they do cheat, not only the competitors in these sports, but the abusers themselves of their own good health and the pride of winning based on their own good efforts and merits. Ultimately they cheat the fans of seeing the true potential of human efforts.
We should not continue to perpetuate this behavior by offering excuses instead of solutions, giving leeway instead of rebuke, pandering rather than helping. The users and abusers should be openly and honestly rebuked and disciplined.
You said " Isn't that what America is all about — having an edge? " My answer to that is hell no!, that is not what America is all about, if it is then God help us! If you look at our history in this country, it has never been about having an edge, it has been about opportunity, freedom, justice, and the persuit of happiness. That is what America is about. While I would agree that the very structure of our free market society encourages one to seek out an edge in order to succeed or attain certain goals, it is not about having an "edge". In other words, happiness CAN be, and has been obtained without having that so called "edge". Plastic surgery wasn't always the norm in Hollywood, nor was music sampling and filtering for the music industry. There was a time when such successes were accomplished through old fashioned hard work and determination, with a little pazazz thrown in.
In so far as the government getting involved, they are overstepping their bounderies, let MLB figure out what to do about it on their own. The market will dictate how they respond, when ticket sales decline, special family oriented groups begin to protest and encourage boycotts, when advertisers begin to distance themselves from the organizations, or God forbid, when more of these same athletes fall over dead and there families sue the pants off of the sports franchise, that will cause them to do the right thing. It can happen if the people make it happen, if government intervenes it will just get a lot worse. The drug problem in the rest of the country ought to be a key indicator of that. Less government, more personal responsiblity.
Grrrr! to you for saying otherwise.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

UPDATE: John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D. Jones of New York also way in on the steroid usage issue asking What's So Bad About Steroids?. Once again offering excuses rather than holding these guys accountable. Although I do agree with their premise regarding government regulation. I definately do not believe the government should be getting involved with this situation. I mean, it is o.k. for John McCain to speak up about it and express disgust,dissappointment but threatening government enforcement is going too far.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004


Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all.. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

Thank you sir for breaking it down for the common folk.

Sunday, December 05, 2004


The theme of the day seems to be race politics. The always lovely Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barber's Corner blogs about the issues of diversity on Historically Black Campuses, Illegal Immigration in the Golden State and the lovely Michelle Malkin responds to some liberal bloggers who weren't smart enough to realize that it is not a crime for a minority women to change your last name after marriage. Finally we have Mr. Keith Harris giving the scoop on Southern race politics below.


Bill James, a name that some of you may get to know some day soon. Mr. James is a County Commissioner in Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Carolina. I live in what we call Upstate South Carolina and I am in close proximity to Charlotte. Bill James has over the years been called a lot of names, he even semi prides himself on being know as the bishop of Charlotte. Just this week Mr James is at it again with an email that he sent to some 1000 Charlotte area residents.

This is an excerpt from the email:

"Most people know why CMS (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools) can't teach kids within the urban black community. They live in a moral sewer with parents who lack the desire to act properly. That immorality impacts negatively the lives of these children and creates an environment where education is considered `acting white' and lack of education is a `plus' in their world. Count on the Democrats and the media to try and ignore that debate as well."

Needless to say the “Black Leaders”, the Black Clergy, Democrats, and surprisingly the local Republicans are all over James’ email for what it implies and because it will have an economic impact on the Charlotte region. Some guy from the chamber has said that companies looking to relocate to the region will hear about James’ comments and rethink coming to this region. Once again they are more concerned with the image and not the plight of the people.

Let me see if I get this straight Bill Cosby can say basically the same thing as Bill James and in just a matter of a few months liberals are looking to draft him to head the NAACP. Bill James on the other hand has been asked to resign from his County Commissioners seat. So constructive criticism is good when it comes from one of our own but when it comes from a white conservative it is racism. Just a few weeks ago it was ok to paint Condolezza Rice in a less than favorable light, hay lets just say it was out and out racism. Again let me understand when it (racism) comes from liberals its ok but when it seems that its coming from a conservative it is not ok.

What indeed are the solutions to this problem of failing, morally bankrupt, and undiscipline black school children? I know the ultimate solution is Jesus Christ Himself, but how do we put legs to this so that its not just a mantra but a way of life? Its your turn to tell me what we should do. Please, I don’t want to hear about any programs that are government sponsored. This ultimately is a faith based problem so lets hear some faith based solutions.

I'll start by saying that the solutions are found in the truth. A common theme of what Mr. Harris' point and the other links here is that there is a great deal of hypocrisy stemming from the left or liberal minded. While these people cry racism at the slightest utterance from a conservative, they fail to address the real problems at hand. Instead of blogging about Michelle Malkin's maiden name why not address the issue of the lack of assimilation of the American culture by immigrants? As an alternative to bashing a Black or White conservative for telling the truth about the plight of the Black community, why not actually respond with a viable solution and challenge our leaders to address and actually fix the problem? Instead of calling Mrs. Condaleeza Rice an Aunt Jamima, Sell-out, house nigga, or Brown Sugar, why not give her position of authority the respect it damn well deserves by intelligently and constructively critiquing her job performance with tangible, viable and (gasp!) factual information?

The behavior and mindset of much of the liberal left is out right shameful and disgracful and needs to be put in check. Going around name calling and accusing others of racism by being racist is of the lowest frame of mind. It is a sign of anger and amorality. Such behavior deserves no more respect than the gum on the bottom of my left shoe.
I think the late, great President Ronald Reagan summed it up best...

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
-Ronald Reagan


Wednesday, December 01, 2004


This is a website I stumbled across today. I was searching for the website of an old church I once attended and apparently got this site, I guess the site address was quite similar. What made me stay and check it out was this mission statement:

The Men's Center's Mission and Values

Our mission:
The Men's Center provides resources for men seeking to grow in body, mind
and spirit, and from that foundation advocates for healthier family and
community relationships.

Sounds cool right? I thought to myself, self...this is whats needed for men today. To be taught how to be real men in our families and communities at large....Then, I read this:
Our values:

1. We believe men can and should support each other through times of
personal challenge and change.(Yes)
2. We believe in authenticity, which means acknowledging to ourselves and
each other our hopes, fears, strengths and weaknesses as men seeking to
3. We believe in honesty among men, which means men freely expressing
themselves emotionally, socially, intellectually and spiritually in ways true to their own growth and masculinities.(Huh!)
4. We believe in respecting diversity and mutuality in our support groups,
workshops,conferences and outreach activities which means supporting and empowering
all men.
5. We believe in the equality of men and women. (I don't think so.)
6. We believe in recognizing and appreciating our similarities and
differences as humans of all races and national origins, and in the process
fostering mutual respect and brotherhood for us all.
7. We believe in the power of our common humanity, which means regardless of
our sexual orientations, gender identities, or other issues that separate us,
what we have in common transcends our differences.( other words, overlook the fact that some men in your group are gay and therefore are not really men.)

Needless to say I became quite disturbed and fell quickly from my prideful high. Number five really got me going. I will never understand why people continue to insist that men and women can and are equal. Well, if any of you out there actually believes this hog-wosh, I got a news flash for you, men and women are not equal and were not ever intended to be equal and can never truly be equal in this world. Bam! There you have it, the unadulterated truth! Men and women are not equal. Now, take it easy, don't get unset, think first for a moment about the concept of equality. What does it actually mean? How do you know that something or someone is equal? You have to measure it right? Well, how do you measure a man or woman? By their actions, physicalities, qualities, and character, am I correct? Now, anyone with a good pair of eyes can see that for the most part, men and women are built different from the other. Women are naturally able to have babies, men on the other hand cannot. For the most part, on average, men are generally larger, taller, and stronger than women(although there are exceptions). There is a reason why men take on the role of provider, protector and leader and women are, for the most part, the emotional base, the nurturer, care-givers and encouragers. I can go on and on but I am sure you get the point. Men and women are not equal, and cannot be equal. I know that I can clarify further on this point and mention that just because we are not equal doesn't diminish one or the others importance to a relationship and society at large. This should be a given.

But, I digress, back to the website, apparently this organization has been in existence for quite some time, since the '70's actually, a product of the so called men's movement, started on the heals of the feminist movements of the '60's and even states on the site that the women's movement was the inspiration for this so called men's movement to form. Obviously it never grew to the scale of its female counterpart yet, I think, efforts like this has definately contributed to the weakening of the male role in society. Just another attempt at creating a victim based society. Apparently several oranizatons sprang up as a result of this men's movement and evolved into the one you see on this site. The website paints a brief history of the evolution of this movement through the formation of various groups or community based organizations, one being MAN (Men's Awareness Network). It is quite sad to think that there were men actually attempting to duplicate the so called "success" of the women's liberation movements, using the same criteria and motives that being oppression and victimization. Case in point, a quote from a Frank Holmgren, one of MAN’s founders, articulated the group’s focus.
"We are angry at the traditional role models that decree that real men must be strong, independent, aggressive leaders, Humphrey Bogarts who never show emotion and always win."

How sad is this? Independent, agressive leaders, strong? Isn't that what a man ought to be? As far as never showing emotion, who ever said that men don't show emotion, I think far to often we mistake controlled emotion with lack of emotion. As a kid, I remember many occasions where I witnessed my father demonstrate great emotion, including sorrow, but in retrospect, I realize that for the most part, he demontrated them in the appropriate times and manners, i.e. crying at weddings or funerals. Now don't get me wrong, there were plenty of occasions of great wrath that were overboard in my opinion, especially when it was directed towards me(wink,wink). If anything, when a man allows his emotions to overwhelm him, he becomes more of an angry woman than a man. One important fact that I noticed about this site as I browsed through it was there is no mention or reference to being a Godly man. No reference to men being the heads of their homes. No mention of teaching men how to be men in the traditonal sense. I am sure that the founders of this organization had good intentions in mind at the onset but sadly they are terribly misguided. The message I seems to center around showing men how to "express" themselves emotionally.

You cannot have a mens movement in the same way there was a women's movement in that men are not victimized in the same way that women were. The women's movement, for the most part, spun out of control, time and history has shown it to be a failure as there are many women today who attempt to take on the role of provider and mother, only to find themselves in serious conflict. In addition, being that the so called sexual revolution became coupled with the women's movement, we as a society are now reaping the wirl-wind in the form of AIDS, on-demand abortion, teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock births, breakdown of the family unit, and increased animosity between the sexes. While I agree that there may have been a great deal of discrimination taking place against females at some point in this nations history, I don't agree that it was something that needed to be politicized in order for justice to have been had. We must keep in mind that there were many women who acheived great success in the home and in business prior to the women's movement. Being that this movement has proven to be more of a failure in that today, women are objectified, over-sexualized, and exploited more than ever before ( I guess it is different since they "choose" to be exploited, right?), dove-tailing and founding a men's movement off of the so called success of the women's movement only spells disaster and proves to be foolish in that, the women based their frustrations on victimhood stemming in large part from men. Yet, by nature alone, men are not victims, we are masculine, for who oppresses men but other men? So a movement that is founded on victimization, for men, only demonstrates weekness and cowardice rather than solidarity or struggle. I believe this is why this movement has been for the most part, unknown and isolated on a local scale. As a man, I would not want to be a part of such a pusillanimous group. Personally, I think this is the lowest form of male cowardice.

Check out the site for yourself and let me know what you think. Then as a counter, check out this site called BOND (Brotherhood Organization Of A New Destiny) You will see a striking difference in their philosophy and approach. One builds up the man while the other seeks to inadvertantly tear him further down, until he will resemble more of a woman rather than a true man. I also recommend reading Doug Giles, he frequently writes about the issue of weak minded men in the church and how the male has become incredibly effeminized in our culture today. I think he hits the nail on the head, especially when talking about today's church experience. Check out his latest column "Dirty Harry Goes To Church".

Wednesday, November 24, 2004


Have a happy Thanksgiving and however you celebrate it please remember to be thankful for the many blessings of God. Michelle Malkin has a beautiful column about being grateful in this country, very much on point and it really hits home, check it out.

For you parents out there, this is a link to some articles and stories of Thanksgiving from a Christian perspective. I liked this one in particular as it ties into the saying grace theme.



Attempts by Rep. Ron Paul to add special language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress, the one that will allow for mandatory mental health screening of children and all individuals eventually, has failed. Yet Mr. Paul is not giving up. World Net Daily has reported that he will continue his efforts when the new Congress convenes next year.

I have to admit, it is quite frightening to know that there are people within our own government who would o.k. such a measure. Much of the reports I've read point to the notion that the drug companies would benefit from this measure as it could potentially widen their market for anti-depressant drugs and behavioral modification medications such as Ritalin. This is why government intervention in private matters is a big no, no. Lets make sure to continue our support of Mr. Ron Paul in his efforts and get the word out to the media about this. I've sent several emails out so far in hopes of getting someone to do a serious profile of this issue.

Does anyone Know why such a measure is even being considered under a Republican Administration?

What is that saying....the road to destruction is paved with good intentions?

Monday, November 22, 2004


Fox news has reported that Dan Rather of CBS is stepping down after 40 years on the air. CBS and Rather claim that the forged Bush National Guard document scandal had nothing to do with the dicision but had planned to step down after the November elections last summer. Rather, 73, will still be a correspondant with the 60 minutes shows.

I say it is about time and personally I don't believe he should be reporting the news at all anymore. He needs to officially retire and let someone else do the job he was supposed to be doing. Maybe he hopes to redeem himself by remaining a part of the 60 minutes crew as a correspondant. We shall see.

Quotable quote from Answers In Genesis:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”

– Provine, W.B. (professor of biological sciences at Cornell University), Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994

Friday, November 19, 2004


Government enforced mental screening of our children? Is that where we are headed? Should the government even have a say so in such a matter? This is an article by Kent Snyder regarding this very issue. Apparently many pharmaceutical companies are in favor of this measure(big surprise there) that is now before Congress as we speak. Snyder mentions U.S. Representative Ron Paul from Texas and an OB/GYN who is opposed to this measure. He recently attempted to add to the bill certain language that would give parents back their rights in choosing to participate in such a program. I encourage you to check out the article and the subsequent links,this onein particular is a good indicator of where Mr. Paul stands on the whole government intervening in medicine issue.

It seems that this issue has slipped under the radar and more people are now starting to speak up against this proposed measure. Below is a sample letter by one woman that was sent to Congress in protest. Being a member, she sent it to our meetup group urging us to use it and send it in expressing our disagreement. I encourage all who read this to do the same. The last thing I want is to be forced to put my child under phsychological scrutiny at the hands of government trained physicians.

Dear Congressman;
I strongly urge you to see that Congressman Ron Paul's language prohibiting funding of mandatory mental-health screening of children is included in the omnibus spending bill. I am appalled at the bill you are considering whereby all schoolchildren up to age 18 are to be psychologically tested.

At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government. Critics of the plan say it is a thinly veiled attempt by drug companies to provide a wider market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic medication, and puts government in areas of Americans' lives where it does not belong.
Have you considered who will be making up mandatory or universal mental-health screening tests, will it be a valid test in the first place, and what criteria will be used to judge the mental capacity of the student tested and is the administration of drugs the approach that is needed? Frankly I see psychologist and psychiatrists as being some of the most screwed up people in this world. Many of them can not even handle their own affairs let alone others, yet they peddle their advice as if it is the gospel truth and has validity. Many times their so-called “cure” creates even worse problems. Children can become a problem in school due to a divorce or other problems in the family. Treating such things with Ritalin and other such mind altering drugs only masks the problem and is not the solution to the problems that children have nor does it fix the cause. Our children are not the psychological playground of incompetent state bureaucrats. It is not the states business to dictate the raising and the cure of a parents child. God gave the responsibility of raising children to the parents not to the state. Government needs to but out of our family life.

Another thing that scares me is the merging police state I see in this country. We are losing our freedoms and rights one after the another due to the legislation Congress is passing and the government programs being implemented. In the Soviet Union the communists attempted to paint all opposition to the police state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren and someday they'll be declaring the rest of us mentally incompetent so that they can continue on with their tyrannical control without opposition. I say no to this nonsense. Sounds like Nazi Germany all over again. I am asking you to represent the people and to stop this legislation now. If your name appears upon this legislation as having approved it you will not receive my vote next go around.


It seems parental rights are being thrown out the window in every facet of life involving our children, from public education, entertainment, health care and now this.

On weekends I check out the public access channels to watch the LAUSD board meetings, to keep up with how much of my tax dollors they are continually wasting. One thing I always notice, in any discussion involving school programs, policies, problems with behavior, etc. the parents are never mentioned. I've seen supposedly, top performing high school teens appear before the board giving speaches riddled with grammatical errors, making little if any sense, usually because they do not speak English very well. When parents do bother to appear before them to express any greivances, they are never discussed at any length by the board. I remember one woman (a black woman) went before them, extremely angry. So angry she prayed a curse upon them right there in the name of the "Holy Ghost"! The board barely flinched, some didn't even look up at the woman. After she was done rebuking Satan out of the board, she left. Only one board member bothered to actually ask why the woman was so irrate, and of course no one knew why. They spend far more time discussing who and where to dish out more contracts than how to improve the system. I see more business men appear before them than parents. Amazing!

As parents we have to get organized and begin to take back control and responsiblity over the education and well being of our children, now!

Monday, November 15, 2004


This link is a press release from the Rainbow/Push Coalition expressing their grief over Yassar Arafat's death. It pretty much paints a picture of him as a martyr, comparing him to George Washington, Mandela and yes, Mr. Jackson even eludes to Moses, as Arafat was born in egypt as well. Amazing!

Mr. Jackson concludes with:

"Soon, Israeli-Palestinian coexistence will become a fact. Maybe fresh faces in the places of those who have led may be required. Israelis and Palestinians will abide with mutual recognition and coexistence in no small measure due to the contribution of Chairman Arafat"

It very well may become a fact, if and only if, someone of real character, honesty and truth steps up to the plate and works towards a democracy for Palestine rather than continue the legacy of terrorism and destruction that Mr. Arafat left behind.

Friday, November 12, 2004


I received these emails today, I guess in response to some of my postings on my blog or maybe my posts on other blogs. I decided to post them here anonymously to allow any of you out there in blogland to respond. I've already responded directly but thought it would be interesting to see what other explanations/arguments can be given in relation to these issues.

BTW, as for Stem Cell Research...did you know that, when a couple uses a fertility clinic, the embryos that are not implanted are...DESTROYED? How is THAT any different than an abortion? I mean, isn't that life created in a petri dish the same as the life created in the womb?

I know PLENTY of so-called Christians who USE fertility clinics.And the embryos they DON'T use are destroyed.

That being said, what's so wrong with donating those embryos for the purpose of research? I mean, if they aren't used for research, they're going to be flushed down a toilet...or whatever they do to destroy them.

Here is the second email I received from the same person:

But by passing your laws against gay marriage, aren't YOU forcing YOUR morals and lifestyle on THEM?! Or is it okay for YOU to do it, but no one else?

Tell me please...exactly HOW does a same sex couple getting married 3000 miles away affect YOUR marriage? And don't feed me that garbage about the "sanctity of marriage", okay...because at least 50% of all marriages in this country end in DIVORCE. Men cheat on their wives, and women cheat on their husbands....and so-called Christians seem to cheat just about as often as anyone else. Yes, REPUBLICANS cheat JUST AS OFTEN as democrats do.

Sanctity of marriage?! PLEASE...we don't hold marriage sacred in this country anymore. Haven't for YEARS! Michael Jackson got married...Dennis Rodman got married, for God's sake! How "sanctified" can marriage be if THESE guys were allowed to do it?

Feel free to respond and comment on either or both. Please be cordial and fair. Thank you.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004


This is an article on shedding some more light on the Oil for food scam between Iraq, the U.N. and several countries including France and Russia. Apparently it has been discovered that two Russian generals were heavily involved with Iraqi defense and weapons programs and were in the country just 10 days prior to the beginning of the U.S. lead invasion back in March 2003. Not only that but both of the generals were photographed receiving awards from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed. Amazing!

My guess is that more information like this will begin to be revealed before years end. One thing I have noticed though is that this scandal, and it is a scandal of the highest level, seems to not be reported a great deal in the mainstream news organizations. Why is that?

Just imagine if Kerry would have won the election. Do you think the Oil for food investigation would continue as it is under a Kerry/Edwards administration? Personally, I don't think so.

Thank God for President George W. Bush.

To get updated on the progression of the Oil for food scam and to get caught up on some of its history and origins, check out this link to the Heritage Foundation website. They have been writing, researching, and reporting on this since the onset and, I believe, were among the first to officially call for a full investigation of the U.N., requiring Kofi Anan to step down as U.N. Secretary General while the investigation took place.

Friday, November 05, 2004


This is an article brought to my attention written by a Jane Smiley. I've never heard of her or read any of her other work before. Apparently Ms. Smiley is not happy with the election results and decided to rant about it in her column. Here premise is simple, Bush won the election because conservative, southern, Christians are ignorant and stupid. I won't comment much more on it as you can click here and read it for yourself. I must caution you though, reading this may either make you very angry or have you laughing uncontrollably as I was. Here is just a snippet of this woman's thinking:

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

That is just one of many golden nuggets of "wisdom" that fill this article. I am sure what will jump out at you immediately is the blatant hypocrisy of much of what she accuses the Right of doing is exactly what she is doing in this article.

How does the song go? Let your true colors shine through?


Wednesday, November 03, 2004


Thank God almighty for his grace and mercy! Fox news reports that Kerry finally concedes to President Bush It's about time. I believe Fox declared Bush as winning first, before all of the other networks. When I left for my office this morning I was watching NBC's today show (don't have cable) and they were still reporting that Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada were not decided yet. What is up this that?

Am my mistaken? Can someone correct me please, wasn't Fox news the first to declare Bush the winner? If so, why were the other networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.)not reporting the same? Interesting? Like I said, this morning around 7:30am PST NBC was still reporting that the election was in the air and Ohio was not decided yet in addition to the other states mentioned above.

Well, anyway, may God bless President Bush and America!

On a sadder note Prop. 71 passed here in the Golden State. Shameful. This state is really morally screwed up. Not to mention there really wasn't much resistance made in the mainstream to the proposition, why is that? Mel Gibson finally came out barely a week before. He ran a web based add urging to vote No on prop 71. Why not advertise on t.v.? The push to vote No was very poorly carried out in my opinion, this proposition passed due to a lack of knowledge and understanding. The general public were not properly informed of the truth, even in the local news when a reporter finally does acknowledge oppostion to prop 71, they only point out there were moral oppostion but do not state exactly what that oppostion is. The people were pandered to heavily by scientists and celebrities alike. It will truly be sad 10 years from now when we see that nothing but more debt and corruption comes from this measure. Not even the local conservative Republican chapters really spoke out against this initiative, amazing! Even our very own governator supported this initiative demonstrating his own moral failings and ignorance of the truth.

May God truly have mercy on this state.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004


Here is a pdf of our "voter rights" as described and disseminated by the DNC. I received it in my email today. This is what the email said:

Dear Jerry,

We are on track for historic turnout in this election. America is coming out in record numbers for John Kerry.

And that has the Republicans scared. They have no plan, no hope, no way to win this election except to stop people from voting. Their strategy is simple:

Discourage Democratic voters from going to the polls by filling the airwaves with predictions of doom and gloom. Delay voting and create lines at polls by challenging voters and election officials. Deny voters the opportunity to cast their votes and have them counted.

But their strategy won't work. We will stop their attempts to deny our rights by using the best weapons in our arsenal: information and education.

It's vital that you know your voting rights. Take a minute today to make sure that others know their rights, too. Download our guide to voting rights:

Make sure to print out multiple copies and help us spread the word by distributing them as widely as you can.

For information about finding your polling place, use our polling place locator at

Remember: Voting is your right, and you are protected under the law. Exercise your right by voting for John Kerry, John Edwards, and all our Democratic candidates on November 2!

Vincent Fry
Executive Director
DNC Voting Rights Institute

So after reading this I thought, why not check it out, there actually may be some serious, comprehensive info within this voting "guide". After downloading it and then reviewing it, which took all but 40 seconds, I must say I was quite disappointed. None of the information was anything shockingly new and really, should be what any average voting citizen should already know. Not to mention, when expressing that the elderly or disabled have a "right" to have help and accessibility to the polling place, they don't express exactly what kind of help or accessibility they mean. Not only that but what resources are available, i.e. phone numbers, websites, etc. can be accessed to find out what is available for me if I happen to be elderly or handicap?

There is a lot of other things I find disturbing about this as well, such as the fact that this is the first and only email I have received regarding voting rights, why wait until the day of the election to inform me of my so called rights to vote? Also, in the email they state that I am protected by law, well, what law? State it, at least in brief. Cite the code and section. In addition, all of the claims of voter tampering being made against the RNC just don't seem to add up. I just finished voting and did not stand in any long line, as a matter of fact, there was no line at all. Nor did I have any problems with filling out the provisional ballet, as I have moved since the last election. Nor did anyone give me problems when my name did not appear on the list. I did not need instructions on using the ballot box as they were clearly spelled out right in front of me in the voting booth, with little black and white illustrations to boot.

You know, it is funny, just yesterday Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barbers Corner commented about how Dems view blacks as children, I agreed and added that many liberal minded blacks see themselves as children as well. Yet, I would go further and state that not only is this true about blacks, but I believe Dems view all of their constituents as children or child-like and this voter bill of rights crap is a perfect example of that fact.

I end with this one question, is voting a right or duty?

Monday, November 01, 2004


This is an article on the CBC website called "Cloning and Stem Cell Research". Please take the time to read it and educate yourselves with the truth about this immoral and absolutely shameful ballot measure.

Update: More reasons not to support prop 71.Mel Gibson weighs in on Prop 71.
If you haven't voted yet, vote NO on this horrible measure.

Powerline Blog goes mainstream & PROP 71 info ran by Bert Bregman, will be part of a special "team" of bloggers who will give special analysis of the election along with NBC's election night broadcast team. Lets give him the support and info he needs and support this endeavor. (JUST CLICK ON THE TITLE LINK TO GO TO HIS BLOG)

How exciting!

Good luck Mr. Bregman, do us bloggers proud!

PROP. 71

For those Californians out there in the blogosphere and abroad, please get the word out about the truth behind prop 71. So far a couple of t.v. polls puts public support of this initiative at 60% for to 30% against, this is quite disheartening. For those who may not be aware, prop. 71 is an initiative that, if passed, would require funding from the state to the tune of about 3 billion dollars to go towards Stem Cell Research and has provisions within it that directs funds specifically for Embryonic Stem Cell research and ultimatey human cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer). Their ad campaign features celebrities such as the late Christiopher Reeve, Micheal J. Foxx and also several well known and respected Nobel prize doctors and scientists. All profess the so called virtues of Stem Cell research, yet none mention that the funding will specifically and predominantly be used for Embryonic Stem Cell reaserch. The only reason why an initiative is supposedly needed is due in large part to the desire of many scientists to clone human beings. The prop 71 measure has in it language designed to actually give these researchers the right to clone a human being. As Wesley J. Smith of the CBC and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute notes,

The same is not true of embryonic stem cell research or human cloning experiments. Federal funding of ESCR is restricted to cell lines in existence before August 9, 2001. Moreover, the federal government does not pay a dime for research into somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning, nor are there any current proposals for it to do so (although Ron Reagan's speech at the Democratic Convention promoted that course). Hence, the measure would make it a constitutional requirement that priority in funding go to human cloning research, since that area of research currently receives no federal funds, with embryonic stem cell research next in line, since there are policy limitations in place that biotechnologists claim encumber the research.

Ultimately, Prop. 71 cannot pass in that the state should not be funding research that requires a viable fetus to be created for the specific purpose of being destroyed and ultimately used for cloning. This is immoral in that it subverts the inherent God-given dignity of human life and will only serve to spiral this state and the nation further into an abyss of moral apathy. I appeal to those Christian bloggers out there. For the secular bloggers, keep in mind that your tax dollars will be used to support this practice, a practice that hasn't proven itself viable in the private sector, inspite of receiving more than adequate funding from the very same. But because of this failure to demonstrate any real progress, this funding is at risk of disipating, which is why these groups are appealing to voters to get public funding, while ASC research has proven to be far more feasible within the private sector. Not to mention, all of the promised treatments and cures are bogus, there is no evidence to support a claim that Alzhimers, Parkinsons or any other brain defect/desease can be cured by either research method. The ads and literature supporting ESC research is quite disingenuous and flat out lies to the public and plays to their emotions and ignorance on this issue, promising quick, short term results. For that reason alone this propostion should not be passed. Keep in mind also, as quoted above, that there is still federally funded research taking place, which allows for pre-existing embryos already slated for destruction or destroyed to be used for ESC reasearch. Contrary to popular belief, there is no federal ban on Stem Cell Research nor specifically, Embryonic Stem Cell research.

A good resource on Stem Cell Research is at the website of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity(CBHD). There are numerous articles, stats and the like on both ESC and ASC research. Another resource is the Center for Bioethics and Culture where you will find world renouned scientists and bio-ethicists espousing the truth regarding stem cell research and where you will find the article I quoted from in its entirety. A link to the article regarding prop 71 and the fiscal crisis in California is here.

Please take the time to educate yourself, take a stand and vote NO on Prop. 71, it is immoral to its core in every way you can think of.

As in all things, I pray for God's will to be done.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


Just discovered this at, Amazing!

Not only is this man a coward but, based on this recent discovery, he is a traitor to his country!

If John Kerry wins this election may God truly have mercy on us all.

Thursday, October 21, 2004


I am sure many of you out there have heard about the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson who has recently been ordained a bishop in the Episcopal church. There is a great stink about the whole thing where members have broken away in large numbers, ultimately dividing the Episcopal church, in protest to his ordination. The reason for the controversy for those who do not know, is due to the fact that Mr. Robinson is an open/practicing homosexual. On his website is listed his biography info and other stuff about his church. Take note of the sermon in particular (you can download a pdf here) I read it and found it wanting in clarity of truth. I want to make mention of the points he makes which seems to really stand out to me and, I think, sums up this man's character ,or rather, lack thereof, pretty well. Apparently Mr. Robinson believes that no one can know what is evil and if one does profess to know good or evil then he is being arrogant. His sermon is taken from Matthew 13: 24 - 30, 36 - 43, the parable of the wheat and tares, although, he doesn't really stay on point and pours into this passage a meaning that, obviously, it was not intended to have.

Not unlike the parable Jesus told about the kingdom. In it, the servants note that two kinds of plants are growing in the field: Wheat, and something which (at least in the first few months) looks like wheat. In fact, it?s a weed which grows in that part of the world called ?bearded darnel,? which looks exactly like wheat for a long time. When it finally heads out, its seed head is smaller than that of the wheat, and upon harvest, it can be sifted out ? which is a good thing, because this weed can cause mild nausea in those who eat it. In Jesus? parable, the workers, in their exuberance to purify the crop, want to rush in and pull out the darnel. But the Master says, ?No, you?ll uproot the wheat. Wait. We?ll take care of it at harvest time. It?s going to turn out all right. The wheat will be gathered in the barn, and we?ll burn the noxious weeds.? And by the way, you can almost hear the Master saying, ?How are you going to tell the weeds from the wheat?!?

What he fails to realize or acknowledge is that the servants in the parable did immediately recognized the "weeds" or evil growing alongside the wheat and the point of the master ordering them to not pull the weeds up was due to the risk of harming the actual wheat while doing so because their roots were intertwined, for isn't that what weeds do, they choke what they grow around? A good example of what I mean is when the Apostle Paul speaks about God using pharaoh for the purpose of subjugating the Israelites and then demonstrating His glory to the same, by delivering them from Pharoah's armies.

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

In addition, when Jesus explains the parable to the disciples he mentions that "and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels" (emphasis mine)So the reapers are angels, and were not referring to us as followers of Christ. This was a parable about the end times and nothing else.

"And now, this wonderful and great country of ours, which has always championed democracy and sought to deal with democratically elected leaders, has now, unilaterally, decided that democratically-elected Yassir Arafat is the wrong leader for the Palestinians. I don?t know if he is or not! But I am alarmed when our President declares that he KNOWS that the Palestinians would be better served by a different leader. What if the next person elected is from the militant group Hamas?! When we stop having an opinion about something, and start claiming to KNOW it, we are on a slippery slope.
(emphasis mine)

I won't even get into the comment about Arafat! Correct me if I am wrong, but is he saying that we cannot know the difference between good and evil? Is he relegating opinion above actually knowing good and evil? If that is the case then my opinion about anything trumps whatever can actually be known about it. How is it that we can be on a slippery slope when we actually profess to know something to be evil? Amazing!

He continues...
Don?t get me wrong. There IS evil in the world. I flew into New York City on the morning of September 11th, and with my own eyes I saw evil crashing into those two towers of steel and humanity. We?re apt to see it again. And we must protect ourselves from it as best we can. But in our war on terrorism, let us be careful that the violence we do in routing out the Al-Qaida ?weeds? of the world doesn?t destroy us in the process. We want to be safe, but let?s not give up our values and ideals in doing so. Let us not, as a nation, arrogate to ourselves the infallible knowledge of good and evil. Only God can fulfill that role."

So what exactly is he referring to when he states that he saw evil "with my own eyes"? Is evil the plane itself, the pilots, passengers? How did he know it was evil if no one can know what evil really is? I find it interesting that one can put evil ,and truth for that matter, into this ambiguous thing to deconstruct it, so that it cannot be defined, this way no one can truly tell anyone else whether or not they are wrong. Stating that truth, good, or evil cannot be known allows anyone to step in and profess "truth" or "evil" or "good" using any definition available at the time to serve their own purposes and claim that it is special knowledge from God. Do you see where I'm going here? It is not surprising that a practicing gay "Bishop" would have such an untrue and ambiguous idea of evil and truth. To redefine evil is the only way he can resolve the obvious conflict between his lifestyle and God's word.

Am I wrong on this, can no one know good or evil but God? Is it not possible for God Almighty to reveal good or evil to us? Even Paul states in Romans 1 that God has revealed Himself to us through creation so that no one is without excuse. If that is the case then how do we know that God is good?

What about the Commandments, are they good? How do we know? There is another question that needs to be asked that he has not considered but would definitely trump this entire sermon. I hope someone out there thinks of it.

Well, I would love to rant on this more but I don't have much more time and I would rather here from my fellow bloggers out there what you think about this sermon.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Future Question

Here is another post by Keith Harris titled "Future Question" posing a question about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy. I think it is an interesting point to bring up. While I would contend that it is meaningful to look at what Kerry did back in Viet Nam, I must also say that period alone should not be the focal point of his campaign, but an honest look at his history on a whole should be made and subject to examination by the public. I say this for both candidates, if they would be more upfront and honest about themselves from the onset, much of the "scandals", lies and half-truths taking place could be avoided, or at best ignored.

Without further adue:

The year is 2024 and one of the two major political parties is nominating the first ever single mom. Everyone has marveled at how she had been able to pull herself out of poverty and through adversity and all week long she has been the talk of the country. It’s Thursday night and the air is electric, she steps up to the podium pulls off a smart salute and say’s “PFC England reporting for duty.” The Democratic delegates go wild.

That night the 527 group “Abu Gharib Guards for Truth” issued the following statement. “Voters haven’t seen such a blatant use of ones questionable military record in 20 years.”

Everyone will say lets move on and quit dredging up the Iraq war in this election.

Are you mad yet?

Those of us who have no recollection of what happen in Vietnam have no right to tell the Swift Boat Vets and anyone else who was hurt by what John Kerry did after the war, too just move on.

Should we focus on Rather-gate or on the Swift Boat Vets? I think now is the time to bring the Vets back with the media’s new found thirst to be fair and balanced. After all, who wants to look like CBS.

Very good point brought up here regarding CBS and their lack of coverage of the Swift Boat Vets and their intense focus on Bush's National Gaurd service. Over at Lashawn Barber's Corner, she highlights an article by Ann Coulter that bears out this very point. Especially given the weight of the accusations of the Swift Boat Vets, they received little if any coverage by CBS. Bush's record though gets full profile on 60 minutes, inspite of the fact that he has already been elected president and served. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the mistakes he has made during this last administration? Theres been quite a few made including the intelligence debacle. Why not put a fine tooth comb to issues such as this and bring out the facts for all to view and judge for ourselves.

This is the problem of blind anger, there is no truth or rationale for it and therefore it leads you down a winding path of inconsistency and foolishness. Shame on CBS.

Friday, September 17, 2004


I was reading a post on my favorite blog once again, Lashawn Barber's Corner where she blogged about abortion, particularly among black women. What stood out to me though was a reference she made about Jesse Jackson and his stance on abortion. Apparently there was a time when this man had at least some semblance of a conscience. He wrote a 1977 article entitled "How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue", where he contends that abortion is wrong becuase it violates the sanctity of human life. I clicked on the link and read the entire article and was amazed at the eloquence and logic that he used. It was quite impressive I must say. I am no great orator or philosopher, but, I do recognize sound reasoning when I read it. This was a far cry from the rhythm, rhyming speeches and over the top oratory I've seen him do growing up.

It just so happens I just finished reading a book called Shakedown, Exposing the real Jesse Jackson which chronicles Mr. Jackson's career as a "shakedown artist" in corporate America and our U.S. government. It was quite depressing to say the least, there were times while reading it I had to simply put the book down and calm down for a while. Yet, after reading this article he wrote back in 1977, I find myself actually having pity for him. I feel as if this man is so lost and trapped by his own sinful foolishness that I cannot be angry with him any longer, I simply desire to pray that he will in some way, truly repent and turn away from his wrong doing. I honestly pity this man for what he has become.

Just imagine the impact he could have had on the pro-life movement had he not been a coward and flip-flopped on the issue? Just to run for President at that, shameful! I almost found it hard to believe that such a man could have written such things. I found this statement in his article particularly moving and to me, hits the nail on the head in regards to many of the other issues I've brought up here. In addressing the excuse used that the men are not responsible and will not take care of the child, therefore a woman is justified in aborting he writes...

If that is the problem, then deal with making him responsible. Deal with what you are dealing with, not with the weak, innocent and unprotected baby.

He goes on, in what I think is a brilliant tie-in to scripture...
The essence of Jesus' message dealt with this very problem -- the problem of the inner attitude and motivation of a person. "If in your heart . . ." was his central message.

Then he brings it back to a logical premise...
The actual abortion (effect) is merely the logical conclusion of a prior attitude (cause) that one has toward life itself. Deal with the cause not merely the effect when abortion is the issue.

Plain and simple. I must admit, I am impressed, yet incredibly disappointed. Seeing the type of man that Jesse Jackson has become leads me to a profound conclusion. That when we are distracted by this world and allow ourselves to become enveloped in our own sinfulness, we miss out on our true calling in life. I truly believe that Mr. Jackson is missing out big time!

Tuesday, September 14, 2004


I have a new feature on my blog, if you would scroll down and look to your right you will see it. Please feel free to comment and discuss any of the topics on my blog or related. I am not sure if it is a good idea or not to include a message board but, what the heck! Just wanted to try something new and different on my blog.

Have fun!


Here are a couple more tributes to those men and women who suffered under the hands of the terrorist cowards and to those men and women who continue to fight against them and defend us today. I know that there has been quite a few bloggers giving memorials and tributes to 9/11. I figured one more wouldn't hurt and I haven't seen these links anywhere else.

This is a video documenting the baptism of some soldiers in Fallujah after a recent conflict. It is quite touching and gave me a good perspective on the attitudes of our brave soldiers who are in Iraq.

This second link is another multi-media presentation set to music in remembrance of those who suffered and of those who stood up and defended this country.

That is all I have this morning. Sit back and take a few moments to appreciate this, you won't regret it.

God bless.

Sunday, September 12, 2004


For varying reasons I missed the opportunity to blog on 9/11/04 about the memorials, my own experience, etc.. so here I am a day late, yet the feeling of remorse is still with me and others that I've spoken to about 9/11. So I figured I will blog anyway. I don't have any articles to link to or interesting memorials, just my own account of that day and maybe some other tidbits.

When I found out about the attacks, I was at home, getting ready to go to work. I had just finished getting dressed and went downstairs to prepare breakfast for my boys. My older son had already turned on the t.v., possibly hoping to sneak in some cartoon watching before heading to school. The channel happened to be on channel 4 NBC network when the t.v. was turned on, and there it was as plain as day, a live shot of the twin towers, with one in flames and enveloped in smoke. My son thought it was a movie and even asked me what the name of it was. I looked closely and told him with a rumbling of fear and anxiety that "I don't think this is a movie son". We sat there a few seconds and eventually a voice over began to explain that one of the towers had just been hit by an airplane. My God! I exclaimed. We all sat there looking, even my younger son, who was still just a baby, was unusually quiet. I stayed glued to the t.v. and then it happened, a second plane crashed into the second tower. I could not believe my eyes! It was the most amazing, extraordinary thing I had ever seen. With the first plane crash I thought to myself, what a horrible accident, but after the second crash I immediately knew, this was no accident. Then memories of the earlier attacks on the WTC came to mind, and the bombing in Yemen as well. It all began to make sense then. As I watched in horror, tears began to fall from my eyes at which point I decided to pull myself together and get the kids out to school and daycare, and get to work. I don't know why I decided to continue the day as normal, I just did. For the rest of the day, I had a surreal type of feeling over me, I was very detached. The world just didn't seem like it was real anymore. As for my older son, he really did not fully appreciate what was happening at the time and seemed to dismiss it after dropping him off at school.

Where I worked at the time, as most people there know that I am a bible believing Christian, I found it hard to focus and was constantly interrupted by co-workers asking me questions as to why God would allow such a thing to happen, or some asking me to pray for there family who were in New York. There was one young woman in particular that stands out in my mind. I found her response quite surprising in that she had never seemed like a very "deep" or spiritual person to begin with. She found it extremely difficult to resolve the logic behind such an attack and God's love and mercy. The jist of our conversation? To her, God was either very cruel and unloving, or did not exist at all, since he had allowed such atrocities to occur. I sat and reasoned with her for some time, encouraging her that God was still in control of all things, inspite of what had recently happened. I then sort of educated her on the notion of sin and how 9/11 is one of many consequences of this world being cursed with sin. That only through the redemption of Jesus Christ can there be any salvation from it. I also assured her that the souls of those individuals in the planes and the towers were in the hands of God now, as they always were really.

I was reminded of Romans 8:37-39
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I told her of this chapter and verse and explained to her that if we abide in Christ and obey the law of God, then His love will keep us, protect us, and guide us. That there is nothing in this world that can or will separate us from God. I then encouraged her to receive Jesus Christ as her savior and to turn away from her sins. She then broke down into tears and cried heavily. We then prayed and then she went to the ladies room to "freshen up". I did not see or hear from her for the rest of the day. The day seemed to go on longer than usual and all that we could do was talk about what happened, why it happend and what it possibly meant. When I got home, I had tons of messages from friends and family asking me if I had heard about what happened. The following days were spent between home and church, mostly at church as there were a great many services, memorials, and so forth for the members. I assisted where I could, including praying for those who were in grief.

On yesterday, I didn't really do anything specific for 9/11. Just spent all day with my boys, being a dad and thanking God that we were still here. The biggest thing I learned from the 9/11 attacks was gratitude, gratitude for my family, for the opportunities I have in my business, for my family, my country, and most importantly, for salvation in Jesus Christ. I thank God almighty for the wisdom of His word. Without it I would not have the courage to speak the truth in love, and without it many of the families of the victims of 9/11 would not have any comfort or hope.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

My First Townhall Meetup...

I went to my first townhall meetup on last night. It was quite interesting. The meetup was a San Fernando Valley conservatives group meetup. I signed up on the website.

This particular meeting was focused mainly on the Bush/Cheney re-election bid and getting people out to vote this coming election. There were also several local candidates there to address the attendees and encourage as well as thank them for their support. Overall it was quite nice. There is a great deal of momentum in the Bush campaign, thanks in large part to the apparent success of the GOP convention. A great deal of enthusiam from the front line volunteers.

I met a lot of people there and had some very interesting and enlightening conversations. As my bio states, I am a new conservative in that within the past two to three years I've come to truly realize that my views about the world first and foremost must be shaped by God's word and secondly, because of that fact, in carrying out my beliefs I've come to support the conservative platform, specifically the Republican party. So for me, this was quite new and different from my usual hangouts, i.e., kicking it with my brothers or sisters listening to their complaints about Bush and praises for Jesse Jackson. It was nice to be around like-minded individuals for once. You would think that I would have found like-minded people at my church, but not even at church do I find many conservatives. It is quite amazing when you think about it.

Although I was a bit nervous going into this, one thing I did know and expect to happen, I knew that most likely I would be the only black person in the room, and sure enough I was. I stood out like a sore thumb, yet, I did not feel out of place, it was a very welcoming environment. I struck up several conversations and exchanged business cards with a few people as well before the meeting even began.

At the end of the meeting, a funny thing occurred, a gentleman walked up to me, shook my hand, asked my name and stated that he was so happy to see me there knowing that it is probably very difficult for me to attend such an event, given the possible repercussions from other non-conservative blacks. I was surprised at such a remark being made at the onset of a conversation, although as the conversation progressed it became clear that this person was somehow attempting to demonstrate his intellectual prowess when it comes to black issues and public figures. He immediately went on about how he loves Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and other black conservative thinkers, although his hero is Dennis Prager. That is where I politely ended the conversation and decided to go home, as it was quite late. I was then stopped by another gentleman who seemed quite friendly and very out-going. He simply asked my name and if I were a first timer. We then got into a conversation about the communist party's infiltration of the Democratic and Republican parties. We discussed their influence over Johnny Cochran and discussed John Edwards history as a trial lawyer and how it affected the healthcare industry. We even discussed Jesse Jackson a bit, it just so happens that I am reading a book on Jesse Jackson called "Shakedown, Exposing The Real Jesse Jackson", it is quite fascinating. We then exchanged contact info and he put in a plug for me with a passing friend about doing some sign artwork for the local campaigns, so we will see how that turns out, and then we parted ways. They all invited me to go to a Dennys restaurant but I was pretty tired and had to get up early the following day, that day being today. So I declined and finally went home.

I signed up to do a canvassing of some neighborhoods this coming weekend, to pass out info and signs regarding the Bush/Cheney campaign as well as the local campaigns here in L.A. County. I've never been much on volunteering outside of church, so this will be quite a new experience for me. I will keep you posted.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Multi-Culturalism is the new Racism...

That is all that needs to be said. It is the new racism towards whites for one and then towards the very minorities who spout and support the many ideologies of this cause.

Under this banner we have tolerance which enforces the logically flawed thinking that we ought to accept things that are different from the norm, or that all people are special and are naturally good. This line of thinking is at the core of our screwed up judicial system where minor offenders are sentenced to harsh terms and harsh offenders of the law get off scott free, in many cases, just because of the color of their skin!

Within this framework we also have the very popular notion that it is o.k. for foriegners to come into our country, whether illegally or legally, and not have to learn the dominant language of English. As a result, we have bi-lingual signs, advertising, radio stations, learning materials, interpreters, and now it is a job requirement to have to speak another language for jobs that, traditionally, never required it. And then there is the so called "dialect" of Ebonics or "code switching" which allows illiterate children to remain so without challenging them to actually learn to speak proper english, but still advance through our school system. In addition, this ideology has given birth to the atrocity called Affirmative Action (Special Preferences, Reverse Racism, Racial quotas, etc., etc.).

We have companies sponsor Gay Days for their homosexual employees to supposedly "come out" and share their lifestyle with coworkers, many of whom could probably care less. It is even to the point of having national recognition where people who practice such deviant behavior get to go out into the streets of the city in parade form. Even Disneyland has gotten into the act! Amazing!

Where will it end? How far will our society go in the name of Multi-Culturalism? Or Tolerance? Should we tolerate everything and everyone? Is that really tolerance or pandering? What is worse yet is that when you express disagreement with any of the afore mentioned you are deemed intolerant, racist, and judgemental. Well, I agree with two out of the three, I am intolerant and judgemental, but that is my right as a free citizen of the USA and I have a God given ability to do so. Based on the truth of God's word, we are to judge, although not self-righteously, but against the truth of scripture, and we ought not to be tolerant of every lifestyle or ideology, to do so causes us to come into conflict with God's will.

Well, enough ranting for now. Just had to get that out of my system.

Thank you for tolerating me!

It is the new racism.