Marlakins

Marla's adventure from Aplastic Anemia and beyond

25 Comments

1. patti said,

   September 10, 2008 at 9:42 pm

   Whoa nellie! Yeah, I like that guy! Wow! How many churches lack preachers that stand up for the truth these days. Yep, that lady was running fast and loose with scriptures. Yeeks. But, there are *a lot* of churches that believe exactly like what she’s saying. I have found (and this is just my experience) that charasmatic churches tend to lean more liberal that way with women in the pulpit, playing loose with scriptures, etc.

   Yep, they’re going after Palen bad. Although I believe that office would be more bibilical given to a man, we have a woman that is conservative and a fantastic bulldog going after the liberals so I’ll take her over Osama Obama anyday.

   patti

2. Administrator said,

   September 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm

   Well, I can’t say I’ve been very happy with either party. I try not to get into it on the net, but honestly, I was surprised and disappointed when I heard that Palin was chosen for McCain’s running mate. There were several things that crossed my mind, and one was that I don’t think I would trust her to be President if for any reason something happened to McCain. I think she would be used as a puppet. It seemed pretty obvious from the get go that she was chosen to try to pick up the female votes that would have gone to Clinton. In that respect, I felt that McCain is only interested in winning the election and was not seriously considering the welfare of the nation should something happen to him during his term in office. Now, I’m not sold on Obama, either, but he is definitely a much better speaker that McCain, and I was surprised to see Obama’s comments on his interview on 60 Minutes http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9529539&ch=4227541&src=news where he explained the reasons why he chose Biden. His answer addressed my concerns. That is, he said that one of the reasons he chose Biden is because he is very experienced, and should anything happen to him, Obama felt confident that Biden could take over competently. Biden does seem more competent that Palin. He mentioned that he and Biden have had their differences of opinions, too, and he liked that because he felt that Biden could essentially see things that he might over look. He trusted Biden’s forwardness that he would bring things to Obamas attention and not hold back on his concerns. From his experience, he felt confident that Biden had a good grasp on important issues. I liked that answer.

   Now back to Palin, there are other concerns I’ve had now that more is being written about her. I realize that it can all be media misinformation, etc. and making her look kinda goofy, but when I saw Voddie Baucham’s interview, that brought to front another concern I had regarding women’s role in our society. And really this aspect is more important to me because I am a Christian “first” before I am an American. I had expected the liberals to want a woman in office, so was not at all surprised with Clinton. But I was very disappointed that the so-called conservative party is accepting a woman to be so high up in leadership. I realize that there are many very capable women, but that’s not the issue when we’re looking Biblically. It irks me to no end when things like this come up where people keep chanting that we’re a “Christian nation,” yet we endorse “non-Christian” ideals like having a female Vice President. When will the compromising end?

   I found that Voddie Baucham has a blog and wrote more about Palin. Again, I completely agree with this guy. Basically, he wrote that although Palin might be considered “conservative” and is pro-life, she is “not” pro-family. He explains it very well on his post at http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/8/30_Did_McCain_Make_a_Pro-Family_Pick____.html

   I can not in good conscience vote for McCain with Palin as his running mate. Course I don’t feel comfortable voting for Obama, either. I think we are getting the leaders we deserve no matter which party comes into office. We’re screwed as far a having leaders with conservative Biblical values. Neither party respects the precepts laid out in the Bible, one supporting abortions and the other disregarding the roles of men and women and the family. We have this false illusion that we have a choice. Yeah, some choice. . . My hope is that no matter what goes down, my family and I can continue to live peaceably. I want no part in it.

   Marla

3. Administrator said,

   September 12, 2008 at 9:27 am

   Okay, now that I’ve spilled my point of view about Palin and McCain, I might as well add a tad more. I’m a little relieved to find that I’m not the only one with reservations about McCain. Here’s a couple clips regarding James Dobson’s view of McCain. And I do highly respect Dr. James Dobson.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yDro-hy3TU (Dobson on McCain)

   and here’s one with Dobson’s voice.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V6czoeXIu4&feature=related
   (Dobson No Vote for Giuliani or McCain Under Any Circumstance)
   I share Dobson’s feeling about sitting this one out. I don’t want to be responsible for supporting either party.

   Marla

4. patti said,

   September 13, 2008 at 8:47 am

   Marla,

   I posted after your first post and it didn’t show up but I didn’t figure that out until now. I’ll have to repost what I wrote later because I don’t have time to type it all up right now.

   Dobson has since come out in favor of McCain/Palin because he chose a pro-life running mate AND because he has looked at Obama’s record and realized what an Obama administration would do to this country with respect to abortion and supreme court justices.

   Okay – I’ll have to write more later.

   patti

5. Administrator said,

   September 16, 2008 at 12:17 am

   Hi Patti:

   Sorry I wasn’t able to recover your previous post. There were too many spam items in the spam folder that I couldn’t view them on one page, and I don’t know how to move pages there. I don’t see any option for it.

   Yes, I did see “after” my post on Dobson that he has subsequently changed his mind now that Palin is McCain’s running mate. I do respect Dobson because he has had some very good insight regarding family values in the past. However, this time (so far) I do not agree with his endorsement of Palin for VP and subsequently a reason to go ahead and vote for McCain.

   As anyone knows, there are “lot’s” of things to consider (not just the abortion issue) when it comes to making a choice for VP or President. Since as I mentioned before, “I am a Christian first before I am an American,” Thus I would like to share my views regarding Palin in this election in relation to my Biblical views first.

   I know that there are arguments among evangelicals that go something like this:

   “Women are not allowed to teach or preach in church, and that man is to be head of the woman. BUT, since government is not church, then it is okay because government is not under the same rules as churches.”

   There are a few problems I see with that. First of all church and men are not limited to church buildings. Christians are everywhere in the U.S. In a leadership position such as the VP or the Presidency, that would mean that she “is” acting head over many men in many departments. If for some reason she were to become President, then as Commander-In-Chief, she would have “authority” over the U.S. Armed Forces, CIA, FBI, NSA, Dept of Agriculture, FDA, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Education, etc. Are we going to ignore the many Christians that that would include who she would be exercising authority over? Paul wrote that not only is a woman not to teach a man, but also not to exercise “authority” over a man.

   1 Timothy 2:12

   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

   The “reason” Paul gave for why the woman should not be in those positions is because she was deceived and resulted in the fall of man. We discussed this before. What I find particularly noteworthy in this case is that Paul’s reason is not from the “law” or from his whim, but from the example from history of the “nature” of women.

   And yes, Deborah in the Bible was a judge over Israel, but if you recall the reason, it was because at the time there was so much evil in Israel that there was “no” man who was good enough to do the job. What’s happening here and now? Are we voting in a woman because the times now are so bad that there is not one good man to lead us? And it was also different in the time of the judges because the people did not vote for judges, God chose them.

   As Christians (and Palin is apparently an Pentecostal Christian), what does God require from us? Make laws or enforce laws? Try to stop all the abortions in the world? As far as I see, those are not the priorities for Christians. Sure we believe abortions are evil, but even if abortion were legal, we are not forced to have them. We have the right to have our babies, deformed or not. Is it our job to police non-Christians and Christians alike? I don’t think so. We Christians know not to abort our babies regardless of whether abortions are legal or funded by the government. Do we force people to believe in Christ? No, it is their choice. We are not like militant Muslims who believe in “convert or die.” That is not the Christian way. It’s not our job to judge non-believers much less enforce laws on them. Micah 6:8 tells us what God requires of us.

   “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

   I don’t see any mention there that we are to change society by making laws for them. There isn’t any mention of ruling over people. He wants us to be just, merciful, and walk/follow Him. Is Palin following Him when she leaves her family while she’s out trying to change or govern America? Sure if she were single and/or an elderly woman whose kids are grown and out of the house, things might be a bit different, but as a wife and mother, I think taking such job as VP is in violation of Titus 2

   “Then they (the older women) can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”

   Notice the “reason” for women to have the above qualities is “so that no one will malign the word of God.” If you aren’t home enough with your kids, then things like getting pregnant out of wedlock like Palin’s daughter happens. Things like that malign the word of God. Non-Christians can easily see that hypocrisy. According to one of Palin’s interviews, she went back to work when her first son was 7 years old.

   If you have been watching Palin’s interviews with people like Gibson, you may notice that Palin already talks very much like a politician–side stepping issues and not being fully honest that she doesn’t know about certain things like the Bush Doctrine. She is putting herself in a position that she will have to compromise a “lot.” Think of Proverbs 6:27:

   “Can a man take fire to his bosom, And his clothes not be burned?”

   Palin is putting herself in a position to harm her moral integrity (whatever there is of it). Government office positions is not good for Christian women. Is being VP or potentially the President honoring living a quiet life?

   And then there is the issue that Voddie Baucham http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/8/30_Did_McCain_Make_a_Pro-Family_Pick____.html brought up about the example she will have for all American woman regarding work coming first before the family. How much time will she be away from her young kids and husband? Her new addition even has down syndrome which likely means he needs even “more” attention than regular healthy babies. But where will she be? Can her husband breast feed that child?

   While I do admire Palin’s stance on pro-life, that she is against embryonic stem cell research, that she’s against gun control, and that she is a Christian and believes in creation; does that make it okay to overlook and dismiss other Biblical concepts pertaining to women? I don’t think so. 1 Corinthians 5:6 says:

   “Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?”

   Is it okay to compromise Biblical principles and just “pick” which principles you want to follow and disregard the rest? I don’t think so.

   Okay, need to take a break. So far those are the kinds of things that have bothered me about Palin as running mate as it pertains to the Bible. Certainly there must be other ways to look at it, and I should continue to explore the matter, but I want to be honest with myself and not try to find “excuses” why it’s okay or not. So I’m still going to keep listening to opinions out there and weighing them. I’ll try to keep an eye on key evangelical figures to see what other way there is to look at it.

   Now the things I have reservations about her regarding policies or her person and qualifications and history is another matter. I think that one might get convoluted, tho, so not so sure I want to get too deep into that one. . . although I could just kinda mention some of the things I don’t agree with her.

   Anyway, must dash for now.

   Marla

6. patti said,

   September 25, 2008 at 9:15 pm

   Okay – how I’ll ever remember what my first post here was, I have no idea. So I’ll summarize as best I can. And beware, this will probably be a longgggggggg post.

   I actually agree with everything you’ve said regarding Palin, being a christian, her being home with her family, etc. That has been my biggest angst in McCain choosing her. Politically, it was a brilliant move. I do not think he did it to try and “get” the Hillary vote. I believe he did it because she’s so conservative that he thought he could win over the more conservative Pubs that he was losing because he was too moderate for most of them (I will include myself in that bunch). I think politically, it was a brilliant move. She does bring the Reagan conservatism that most true conservatives were longing for (again, including myself in that longing for). Additionally, Hillary is going to run in 012 and he is setting the repubs up to have a viable female candidate to run against Hillary.

   I have no issues with her qualifications. Good grief, she’s more qualified then Obama is and he’s running for president for pete’s sake! I simply think that as a christian, she should be home with her family and most likely, her daughter wouldn’t be pregnant had she been home supervising. I also don’t think Palin sought out the political life. If you look at her history she started out on the PTA just wanting to be involved in her kids schooling and things sort of snowballed from there. I don’t think it’s “bad” per se, but I don’t think it’s what God would have a woman to do, either. But I also don’t believe christians ought to be in public schools so she hasn’t done much of anything I think a christian woman should do.

   That said – here comes the big one – God has raised up some woman that have truly changed the times. Obviously, Deborah in the bible is one. God brought her at a time when there were no acceptable men in Israel to lead the people. Could that be the case for the US today? I think one could make the case that there are only a few acceptable men today that could lead (Tom Tancredo comes to mind). But those people didn’t all run for pres and those that did run (Tancredo) did not get the nomination. So a decision has to be made. Is Palin God’s Deborah? I guess only time will tell. The other, more modern, woman that comes to mind is Golda Miheir (don’t know how to spell her last name). She moved from Kansas to Israel and ultimately became their leader and was very good for Israel. So even today (meaning modern times) in Israel, God still used a woman to do something great. Again, is that the case with Palin? I have no idea. I’m just pointing out these two. Margaret Thatcher is another female leader that has been very good.

   Okay – now my personal views. I agree that we are christians first and citizens second. How does one jive that with today’s politics? I guess there is the option to stay out of voting. But I believe the command to obey those that have the rule over us would preclude us from doing that. Would God have us to have leaders over us that are bad/evil for his people? I think God would desire us to put people in leadership that will uphold the christian principles this nation was founded on. This country was founded on christian “principles” wheather people want to agree with that or not. We were not founded as a christian “nation” but with those principles. So I think voting is an obligation that as Americans we must avail ourselves of if we are going to attempt to keep those christian principles in the public arena (which we are losing them quickly thanks to the ACLU and lazy people who won’t fight for them and Repubs who are handing them away, etc. etc. etc.). So for me, not voting is not an option.

   I had planned on voting third party (constitution party specifically). And then I read a fantastic magazine put out by World Net Daily (whistleblower). This is a must get issue. Every month they take one subject and do an in debth mag on it. They covered Hillary, Obama and McCain. None of them were one way or the other. They presented both sides very evenly on McCain. About 1/2 the articles were pro McCain the other half very anti-McCain. What caught me was they had a list of ten things that McCain had done in his life that were totally and completely issues of character. They had nothing to do with politics, but things that were either right or wrong. In every case McCain did the right thing. To me, that showed a man of character. Compared to Obama who has NO character. I mean not one shred of it. So that helped tip me. I also looked at what was at stake in this election. There are 3 supreme court justices that will probably either retire or die in the next 4 years. Who we put on that court can make or break this country. Our founders never meant that to be the case, but more and more our laws are being made not on the constitution, but on what some liberal judges think they should be. Homeschooling would be on the table for liberal judges so a tipped court towards the libs could really hurt our personal decision to school our children at home. Not to mention things like the Fairness Doctrine that the libs have promised to bring back if they get an Obama white house. So from a court standpoint, conservatives have A LOT to lose if we do not have a conservative court. The next issue is abortion. Abortion was put into law illegally in this country as it is – but an Obama presidency would stand to overturn (via the courts) every state that has laws requiring parental consent and what few “protections” babies do have in a few states (”personhood” laws, Late term abortion laws, etc.). By biblical standards abortion is clearly murder. There is no other way around that. That being the case, am I complicit in the murder of thousands/millions of babies if I do not vote to put someone into office who believes in the sanctity of that life and will do what they can to protect it (right down to attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade)? I believe I am.

   Not voting or voting third party is as good as voting for Obama. I would be voting (by omission or comission) for a man known to be a liar, who hates God and God’s people, who believes the US is a terrible country, who thinks killing babies is a “right,” and who has surrounded himself with some of the most wicked, socialist men in this country. I cannot pillow my head at night, as a christian, having been a part of sending that man in office. Nor could I stand before God with that decision and tell God I know it was the right decision.

   Am I a christian first? Yes. And being a christian means doing everything the law allows (voting) to put someone in leadership that will uphold at least the bare minimum in christian principles (God, life, fiscal responsibility, etc).

   McCain has done a few things I don’t like. I am totally opposed to McCain/Feingold campaign reform. It took away some forms of free speech (unconstitutional). I am totally opposed to his stand on immigration. He is like Reagan in that sense. Believing amnesty is better. Fiscally, he’s been one of the more conservative ones in the senate and he’s been willing to go against the tide that way. BTW, three years ago he authored legislation that would stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from doing what they were that led to the crisis we are in today – dems shot him down and repubs wouldn’t support him. He is strong on national defense and he’s not quick to war. He’s been there, done that, and his kids serve in the military. So I believe that he will be much better with foreign policy then Bush was. For the record, we are very angry with the kind of president Bush turned out to be. He ended up being a liberal spender like crazy and gave in way too much to a democrat congress. Okay – end of side note. So that’s how we came to decide to vote McCain.

   Now Palin. While my reservations still exist on the home level, I do believe she is the best person he could have picked for the times we are in. She brings a definate outside Washington, down to earth personality. Everyone who has met her personally (that’s not a liberal!) has said she is very relaxed, she’s genuine, and she means what she says. We have researched the “scandals” the libs have had to come up with and so far they’ve either been totally false (the library book banning – the librarian got on talk radio and said that was never true), or they’ve been half truths and when you hear the rest of the story it’s made us say, “well, now it makes sense and there is nothing wrong with that.” The issue with her firing the guy she told to fire her BIL trooper – ends up being she was justified. She gave the guy an order and he refused. She fired him. The trooper (who divorced her sister) came out and said she was right to have him fired. He tasered his step son when he asked (do you let your kids jump off a cliff if they ask?), he was drinking on duty, he threatened her father’s life, etc. So the trooper came out and said she was right to tell her subordinate to fire him and the guy was wrong for disobeying. So, as far as I’m concerned I see no “abuse of office” there. The fact that it was her BIL, well, what is she supposed to do? If he wasn’t her BIL she would have done the same thing. The guy was a nut bag. So be careful about all that your reading on “scandals” because we haven’t found any that have held up to a thorough looking for the “rest of the story.” And the MSM is NOT reporting anything about the truth. Just what serves their cause knowing that most liberals (my mom included in that one) don’t research anything. They just do what they’re told by their liberal leaders.

   Obama is a wickedness I can’t even go into tonight. He is evil personified (I mean that sincerely). First and foremost, he forged a birth certificate. They know he was not born in the US and therefore is not even legal to run for pres. It’s taken a lawsuit that the MSM is ignoring in the hopes it will go away. But the truth is, at least 10 specialists in authenticating documents have come out and said his birth certificate is a forgery. So the guy isn’t even legal to run. They believe he was either born in Canada or Africa.

   He was in the senate 143 days before he started his run for president. And that qualifies him? Everyone states he was a Harvard Law Professor. Did they tell you he was on leave for the 12yrs he was a “law professor?” There is not a single lecture, a single paper, a single student that anyone has been able to find that saw, heard, or read anything he wrote while at Harvard. Considering it’s almost mandatory to publish stuff to be in a university like that, don’t you think that would be pretty easy to find?

   He says he’s 1/2 black. Well, that’s a lie. His dad was an African ARAB, not a black african. His dad was almost 100% arab. His mom was 100% white. That makes Obama Arab and American. Not black and american. And if you want to sparse it, I think someone calculated he was 6% black based on his heritage. But it’s convenient and expedient for him to say he’s black. Why not? He’d be the first “black” president. That would be historic. The guy is a sham.

   Every political advisor he has (including his relationship with Bill Ayers) is a socialist. The friends we keep says a lot about who we are. If his relationship with those people were 20yrs old and he rid himself of them after college, you could almost give him that. But he has a daily, ongoing relationship with these people. Some of who are advising him on his campaign. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Clearly, he has some evil communications going on.

   I could go on and on and on about all of the lies he has told. Everything he has said that makes him “qualified” to be president are almost outright lies. Yep, he had the “name” of certain things, but he never functioned in a leadership capacity. As a matter of fact, his claim to fame being a community organizer, his boss fired him because he took credit for work that she spent years doing. And by the way, what kind of shape was south Chicago in after he was done being a community organizer to “improve” south Chicago? The same it is today. A mess.

   He’s a socialist. He believes in the redistribution of wealth and told Bill O’Reilly on national TV that he was going to tax those in the top tax bracket and give that to everyone else. Really? Don’t we call that socialism?

   Okay – I wasn’t going to get started on that guy and I did. I could spew for hours. It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO ANGRY to see the MSM slobber over this guy. They will not tell the truth and it bugs me. I’ve had to stop looking at some blogs because the liberal dribble is more then I can stomach these days. I do not believe, in any way, shape or form, that one can call themselves a “christian” and vote for this man. If one is a “christian” and thinks it’s okay to kill babies then there is something wrong with their christianity.

   Okay – off my soap box. But thank you for at least letting me have my say because there have been some liberal blogs that us conservatives have finally just shut up because it’s been so frustrating. They can’t have a spirited debate, just trash on the person talking. Very irritating.

   Have a good night!

   patti

7. patti said,

   September 25, 2008 at 9:19 pm

   I forgot to address one issue – again, while I agree she should be home – just so you know. Her baby goes to work with her everyday and she breastfeeds him whenever he needs to eat. So, she’s with the baby for now. Her husband and her have said if she’s elected with McCain he’ll quit his job and take care of the family full time. Which is better then a nanny – but it’s not momma. She was also known to take Piper (her second youngest) to work with her until Piper started school. So, while it doesn’t “clear” her for mom of the year – she is making attempts to take care of her family. Still don’t agree with it – but wanted to clear up the misconception that she’s handed the baby off to someone else to care for. While she’s travelling I had read one article that said she had the baby with her and a nanny to care for him while she was doing “business.” Do not know if this is correct as I haven’t had time to check it out.

   patti

8. Administrator said,

   September 26, 2008 at 8:11 pm

   Hey Patti:

   Glad that you were finally able to air some of your thoughts on the candidates for the upcoming elections. Since from a Biblical standpoint we agree that Palin as a Christian woman should not be in the VP or President role, we can move on to other things. But before I go on regarding the specific things I find problematic with “both” parties, I do want to comment on the idea that it is our Christian duty to vote for the candidates because I disagree there.

   I think we agree that both parties have serious problems for us in quite a few areas–i.e. abortion, taxes, social services, the war, genetic cloning, fetal stem cell research, nuclear energy, etc. Both parties violate Christian principles, for instance, while one side is in favor of allowing children to be killed via abortions, the other side is in favor of allowing children and families to be killed in unjust wars and sanctions. Personally, I don’t think one candidate is less evil than the other, and having Palin in the mix doesn’t change that one iota, but rather complicates it, since really she would only be the VP for now anyway HOWEVER, if she did move into the Oval Office, I’d be scared! So far from what I’ve seen of her and her interviews, I think she’s trigger happy and has very little understanding of foreign policies and other cultures. For crying out loud, some of these cultures have had tensions and/or been at war for decades, and we’re supposed to believe that she’s up to speed now after two days of meeting with foreign leaders? Boy, I feel safer already. . . sheeesh! And the tiny bit that they gave us only showed her talking about “children.” Sure I think children are important, but that was a world meeting to discuss world issues. Are they taking her seriously? Or is it when they see her they decide to talk about babies, then later get to business when she’s not around? I was so disappointed. Not even a “congratulations” to her about being the first female running mate for the U.S. Presidency. Her being a Pentecostal just adds to my insecurity, as Pentecostals tend to appeal more to emotions rather than reason. Even “if” one candidate was “slightly” better than the other one, it still doesn’t change that they both don’t share values that I believe are Christian. Paul wrote in Romans 3:7-8:

   “7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

   8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

   The way I understand what Paul wrote there is that “the end does not justify the means.” We are not to do evil in hopes for good to result-i.e. vote for the less evil man in hopes of a better outcome. It’s kind of like taking chemo to hope that it’ll cure you.

   As far as our Christian duty, we only follow the law “if” it does not conflict with our Christian faith and the precepts laid out to us by God. I hope not to violate God’s laws just to vote for a “less” evil leader. I do not see presidence of that in the Bible. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not bow down to the idols even though it was commanded they do so by the king. Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den for not following the decree set by the king to not worship any gods before him. Did the Hebrew midwives kill all the male children as they were instructed to do by the Pharoah? No, yet they were blessed for disobeying the command of the Pharoah. (BTW, the difference I see there between the Hebrew midwives and outlawing abortion here today is that the Hebrew women did “not” want to kill their babies. People here today “want” to kill their unborn babies, and they have doctors who “want” to perform these abortions. Forcing Christian principles on them will only make them hypocrites, following the laws only by force, but not by the heart). I don’t see Biblically where we are to submit “unconditionally” to our leaders. Does that mean that Christians in Muslim countries should convert to Islam because Christianity is against the law there? Does it mean Christian citizens in Muslim nations should turn in other Christians because it’s against the law? No. We follow the Bible “first,” and if the laws do not violate the precepts of God, then we follow those second. Voting in a “semi” corrupt President is not a Christian thing to do as far as I understand.

   This topic brings to mind the Amish community. They neither vote or receive social security and such as far as I know. Does that make them less Christian? I don’t think so. They might be smarter than most of us. They help each other and as far as I know, they seem to be getting along rather well.

   Another thing I am reminded of is Gulliver’s Travels. When describing some of the government practices in Lilliput, Gulliver wrote that they did not disqualify a person from leading due to lack of “experience or capability,” but rather looked to see if the person had a good heart first. I’m paraphrasing here, but the gist is that the reason they sought for someone with a good heart first was because if the person had a bad heart but had lots of experience and capability, then they would be just more capable of committing and getting away with their evil and corruption. Conversely, a person with a good heart (even if they had little experience) would rule with goodness and fairness. Now I look at this election and try to see who has a good heart. From what I hear in terms of what they support, I don’t think either one of them fully value Christian ways. Now when I consider Palin, she does appear to have some Christian values, BUT her choice to continue to run for VP even though it is against Biblical doctrine regarding women and wives and mothers, shows me that her heart is not in the right place, either. So on that front, I still don’t feel it is the right thing to do to vote for McCain and Palin.

   As far as the other women in history who did well? I suppose not everyone dies immediately after taking compounds of toxic pharmaceuticals. But it doesn’t mean they are less toxic or that the toxicity won’t eventually come to bite you in the rear later or in another area.

   Another thing to consider, (I just finished watching the Presidential debate) is that since no matter which candidate comes into office, there will be some things that I don’t agree with like nuclear energy. Apparently, “both” candidates are okay with that, although McCain more so that Obama. I am against nuclear energy big time. But it reminds me of the Bible where no matter who is our leader, God will still direct his heart to whichever way God wants it to be. Be it for leniency for the people or to “harden” his heart for whatever purposes God has such as what he did for the Pharoah during the negotiations with Moses to let the Israelites go. As long as we Christians can continue to live peaceably and continue to follow our God, that is my main concern. I am hoping that following God will be more pleasing to God to preserve us than voting in some “less” evil president.

   I do have some other comments in response to your above post, but will have to get to it later. Regarding the “nanny” thing, heheh, did you see Leno with that lady comedian, Wanda Sykes? LOL I know she exaggerated much, but it was funny anyway. The “nanny” comment is towards the end of the clip, but I think there is some truth to that. . . http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/clips/wanda-sykes-holding-back-923/693781/

   Better dash for now,

   Marla

9. Administrator said,

   September 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm

   Okay, I’m back and have a few moments again. I did try to look up some of the stuff you mentioned regarding Obama. I’m not sure where you get all your information. I’m hoping you use several different sources and have more specifics because I believe that the Republicans do just as much smearing as the Democrats do. Personally, I don’t find WND to be a neutral source. I think they are a limb of the far right and as such peddle quite a bit of propaganda and media blackout regarding certain issues. For instance, I tried to look up what they have on depleted uranium used by the military or white phosphorous or cluster bombs. Nothing came up pertaining to their use and subsequent effects on civilians and military personnel, but it certainly has been an issue with those who are concerned about the conflicts overseas. You can google it online and find quite a few hits. Did you know that there has been a ban on the journalist to photograph military dead? I think they learned from the Vietnam war how powerful pictures can be. So people back home are left in the dark.

   Anyway, I did a quick search online regarding Obama’s birth certificate and it appears that there are those who say that it is authentic, and they explain why. Here’s a link to PolitiFact.com which explains what they found as they researched the Obama birth certificate claims of fraud. They say they also checked out his driver’s license, his marriage cert, his registration and disciplinary record, his property holdings, etc, and they all show his name as Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama. No Mohammed or Muhammed. They say they got in contact with the Hawaii registrars and discussed the authenticity of the birth cert and were told that it looked fine. You can read the whole article here. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

   Another website has an article dated Aug 21, 2008 and claims that the birth cert is authentic, too, and even says there is a “birth announcement” from Aug 13 1961 of Barack’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser. The link to the website is http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html I’m curious as to where you got the info that Barack’s birth cert was forged and also who are those 10 “experts” in authenticating docs? Did they describe their techniques and what exactly did they find? And the date of this article?

   You wrote that “everyone states that Barack is a law professor.” I don’t know who “everyone” is, but according to Barack’s website, he doesn’t claim that. It says that, “he earned his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.” There is “no” mention that he was a law professor. So again, I don’t know where you got that? Being president of the Harvard Law “Review” is very different from being a “law professor.”

   I’m also not sure what you’re referring to about Obama being in the senate for 143 days. As far as I know, he has been a senator for Illinois for 8 years before being sworn into the United States Senate, but I think that was in Jan 2005. Here’s the link for that info http://obama.senate.gov/about/

   As far as Obama being Arab, where’s the proof of that? I saw a small clip of Limbaugh saying something like that, but no documentation of that. But Limbaugh is a far right person, too. Any other “reliable” sources for that?

   Regarding taking taxes from the rich and giving them to the poor, yes, that is a socialist concept. I agree. I don’t see why they don’t just give a flat tax if they have to tax, but I guess that would be too simple, huh? But when you look at it, the U.S. is already pretty socialistic. Even our military is socialist in that we don’t have a choice of whether our military goes to war or not, but our tax dollars go there no matter what we want. Sure the soldiers chose to enlist, but when things get bad enough, they can institute a draft, too. We have no choice on how $ is spent on weapons and weapons research, etc.

   Well, must dash for the moment. If you do have a chance to give more links or references to your sources above, I would like to see them. Is that article you mentioned about McCain choosing all the right things online somewhere? I’d like to see what issues he chose the right things on.

   Thanks!

   Marla

10. Administrator said,

    September 29, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Sorry to keep popping it with tidbits of stuff, but I was just doing a search on Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. I will say that I did not know too much about either women, particularly Golda Meir. However, I did find some eye-opening info, which I still have to search more to see if there are any contradictions to it. Anyway, what surprised me was this one article called, “Mother of a Nation, but not much of a mother” by Shoshana Kordova. It stated some not so nice things about Golda Meir including that she had an abortion because she felt that a child interfered with her Zionists activities. Here’s the link to the full article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998369.html And here’s a link to the website of the author of the article. http://www.shoshanakordova.com/

    Regarding Margaret Thatcher, I found references that stated that she voted for liberal abortion laws. Here’s a little clip from one link:

    Abortion, I said to Mrs Thatcher, was a subject of great concern to Catholics. What was her attitude to it in principle?

    “The abortion law is only related to the early months and I voted for abortion under controlled conditions.

    “I’m perfectly prepared to have the Act amended along the lines of the Select Committee recommendations because I think that it’s operating in a slightly more lax way than was intended, but I’m not prepared to abolish it[fo 3] completely.

    “Abortion only applies to the very, very early days, but the idea that it should be used as a method of birth control I find totally abhorrent.”

    The full article can be read here: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103793 Just scroll down a bit to the section “Why I Voted for abortion.”

    Did you know these things about these two women, Patti?

    Take care,

    Marla

11. patti said,

    September 29, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Marla,

    I am having a hard time finding time to find all of the links of stuff I’ve read. I’ve got a sick household and school going. I’m doing it in bits and pieces and saving it in Word to try and transfer it over here when I can. Here are just a few links on the birth certificate issue and the inconsistencies people found with it. Of particular interest is the “photoshop” marking on the back. It appears to have been altered in photoshop. But I put my bottom line at the end.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

    The original story broke in and Israeli paper when someone noticed a lot of inconsistencies:
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm

    This one mentions he had dual citizenship at birth (if he was in fact born in Hawaii) which still makes him ineligible to run for pres.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery

    This is a liberal rag questioning his certificate. At issue : there is a birth registered in TWO Hawaii hospitals for Obama. Some have suggested his grandparents (whom raised him) were very upset he was not an American citizen and therefore registered his birth in Hawaii. I imagine all that could be checked out were it not for HIPPA.

    http://www.rense.com/general82/pbb.htm

    In addition, there was a lawsuit filed in federal court challenging his legal right to run for president. Of course, they’ve requested the case be dismissed but no ruling has been made yet. The entire lawsuit can be found online.

    These are just a few sources. The bottom line is – Obama could squelch all this by providing an original of his birth certificate to several sources. AND, if he doesn’t have the original, he could get a certified copy from Hawaii. That has not been done nor has it been provided to the media (which support him anyway). Why did he remove the only copy he personally put online? That strikes me as very weird.

    My issue with all this is, if it’s not true, just come out and prove it. It’s not that hard to prove. The “sources” he’s used to prove it have their own issues at times of being impartial so are questionable. If the issue is that his parents were in fact unmarried but he was born in the US it will just show him to be the liar he is since he’s stated many times on the campaign trail that his parents were married when he was born. At this point, all people really care to know is, “is he legal to run for president of this country according to our constitution?” If he is, what does he have to fear unless he’s lied about something on his certificate that would just prove his character to be as bad as we all know it is.

    Regarding the Harvard professor/lecturer. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html . That was a typo on my part. He was a lecturer. Even factcheck says he was “on leave” part of time but in several other sources they state he was on leave the whole time. But again, no one can find anything he’s written or anything he lectured on during his time in those two posts. If he was there for 12yrs (and not on leave as has been stated), one would think someone would have heard him, seen him, saw what he wrote, etc. Why is nothing out there for people to be able to review? Either he did nothing in those posts or what he wrote was so objectionable they don’t want it to get out. And if he did nothing, then how can he use them as “qualifications” of his experience?

    Obama was an Illinois State Senator prior to his election to the National Senate. He was a national senator exactly 143 days before he started his run for the presidency. I’m sorry – that does not qualify him as enough time to have learned anything about running a country. In my mind, bare minimum is either A LOT of years in the house and senate with some very important committee chairs, or a governor of a state. And during his 143 days he did nothing of significance that anyone can point to to show his leadership, etc. He was a chairman of several committees and did not hold one, not one, meeting of those committees. Of his time in the Illinois senate, he voted, I believe, it was 137 times “present.” No up or down vote. Just, “I was here.” How indecisive is that?

    I beg to differ on WND. I find them refreshing compared to the liberal crap that is on the major stations and magazines today. Their expose on McCain was extremely balanced. As a matter of fact, the editor of the mag thinks no on ought to vote McCain. So, I think they are far more balanced then anything else out there. They may lean right but they’re still more balanced then any of the liberal news media that fawns after Obama openly. WND does at times post some way out sort of stuff, and on the other hand, they frequently are the first to post a true story LONG before any other outlets put it out there.

    WND does not post their mag articles online. The stuff they sell in their store is what keeps the website going so you’d have to buy that mag. You can email them and they’ll sell back issues. They are $7 each plus shipping, I believe. I gave my mag to a friend, I will see if she still has it and I can copy what the character issues were that struck me. Several off the top of my head were his willingness to stay behind as a POW when he could have left, his willingness to immediately adopt a child that his wife saw Mother Teresa holding – he asked no questions. Only said, “okay, we’ll do it.” He also entirely financially supported another child from that orphanage that his wife asked a friend to raise (because they had just taken a baby). When asked his greatest moral failing he immediately stated not staying married and working out his first marriage (this was not in the WND article – this came from his chat at Saddleback church). I just looked online to see if I could find that article reprinted by anyone else (it was written by Karl Rove) and couldn’t. One of Rove’s contentions is that almost no one knows these things about McCain because he won’t brag about them – but he needs to to prove his character. There were so many others that struck me to the core. I’ll get back with you on if I can get that mag back from my friend.

    I totally agree that voting for the “lesser of two evils” is still evil. But I will not be voting for the “lesser of two evils.” I am voting for ideologically the person that has the greatest character, proven decision making, and experience well beyond Obama’s. Since we do not agree on war, your decision regarding what is biblical is going to be different then mine. Israel fought war after war after war. God was not against war. Going to war for the right reasons is critical – but McCain did not take us into war. He’d be taking us out. Bush took us in. And it’s too late to debate wheather that was right or wrong because what’s done is done. They didn’t put that to a vote of the people.

    If the Senate had had to vote today (the house voted) on that bailout bill and McCain had voted yes on it, I would immediately have pulled my support of him. I believe that was socialist and also against the biblical principle of being a good steward. I am *hoping* with McCain’s stand and past work on eliminating ear marks and slashing waste (he works well with Citizens Against Government Waste), that he will be a better steward of people’s tax monies. There is no way any one of us can know for sure how one will act when in office. We are really voting on their past record. Look at Bush. In my lifetime I would not have expected the way he has behaved as president. It infuriates the H E double hockey sticks out of me. He turned out to be a globalist that’s been terrrible for this country. The only thing he consistently did that was right was live up to the importance of the sanctity of life. Oh yeah, Obama’s stated moral failure? He wouldn’t have voted to save Terry Schiavo (saddleback church). No – we wouldn’t want to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is being killed now would we?

    The only politician I think that has been constitutional down the line is Ron Paul. But he’s not on the ballot anymore (I voted him in the Primary). But he has voted everytime based on wheather our constitution allows for something. Which almost always means he has voted “no” on stuff. I WISH for the day he could be elected.

    You and I also disagree on nuclear energy so we’ll have to leave it at that. I was opposed to it for a long time but they now are able to recycle and reuse 95% of the waste that is created so only 5% gets stored. To me, that’s a great improvement. Although, I’m still for drilling first. If that doesn’t provide enough for total independence, then nuclear.

    So let’s toss out the “experience” factor based on what you said about Gulliver’s Travels. That leaves us with character. A review of both lives of both people clearly shows McCain has character that Obama can only dream of having. So with that standard, McCain wins hands down.

    Forget the name thing. I don’t care what Obama’s name was, is, or he wants it to be. I don’t care if it was Muhammed or never was Muhammed. What I care about is the guy has said over and over he’s black and he’s more Arab then black. At best, he’s 6 – 16% black. His father was arab so he’s still more arab. And if you want to be technical, the guy is probably more white then arab. So why is it he’s running on the “I’d be the first black president?” It’s a lie. He’d be the first arab president. But that wouldn’t play to well in our country right now. Do you listen much to his speeches or what he’s saying on the campaign trail? This is all stuff he’s said and has been recorded and played back on the tube. The issue is, who cares wheather he’s black, white, arab, or pink? Why is he lying about it? Because it’s expedient to. He’ll lie about anything to become president. I see him so much like Bill and Hill that it scares me.

    Okay – it’s really late. I gotta go to sleep. I was up all night with Kassandra throwing up last night and I’m exhausted. I’ll have to keep doing this in bits and pieces and posting when I can. I appreciate that we can have a lively discussion and still walk away liking each other though. I have several “friends” (we’re not that close anymore) that cannot have any discussion when they disagree with something because they will never entertain that they might be wrong on an issue. *Iron sharpeneth iron.* I always walk away thinking and questioning and re-evaluating positions. It’s frustrating when others can’t do that (and really shears away at a friendship).

    night

    patti

12. Administrator said,

    September 30, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Oh boy, Patti, I had not heard about that lawsuit! Now they HAVE to sort that one out soon! It would definitely not be proper if Obama is truly violating that requirement. Unless. . . they go ahead and “if” Obama gets disqualified because of this issue (dual citizenship or not a natural citizen) while in office, then Biden would move up as President. In that case, I also think they should finish up Palin’s lawsuit, too, before the election since it would be best to get her stuff out in the open and have one less ding against her. Honestly, I’m almost afraid to watch the VP debate this Thursday because if Palin says anything more like she has in the past 3 major interviews she’s had, I’m gonna get more scared of her. I hope it doesn’t end up being a long refrigerator magnet game where she tries to string as many words together as possible regardless if the sentence makes sense or not. I’m sorry, but that’s the way I feel when I try to listen to her or even read the transcripts of what she says at times. I would feel better about her if she would get direct to her points, and actually “clearly” and specifically answer the questions asked of her. Her answers have been very vague “except” it seems pretty clear that she is in favor of preemptive strikes where “she will not blink.” Yikes. . . I hope I’m wrong about her, from what I’ve seen of her interviews, she doesn’t give me confidence.

    I have to go out in a few minutes and won’t be back until later tonight, so only got a small chance to read about that lawsuit very briefly. Will try to search it more later as well as continue with other comments, heheh.

    I too am glad that you aren’t offended that we have differing opinions, so long as I don’t feel like I’m talking to the wall, it’s fun to discuss some of this at times.

    Laters,

    Marla

13. patti said,

    September 30, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    I actually agree with you on some of Palin’s interview stuff. I told Ron tonight (and Rush is saying this also) – they’ve (McCain camp) got to let her go out and be her. It’s almost like they don’t want her to be specific. One thought is they are just waiting for the debate to let her go so she’ll walk all over Biden (who’s a blithering idiot and can’t say anything without putting his foot in his mouth). I hope that’s the case because if they don’t let her go and speak freely people are going to be too wary of her. I’m actually looking forward to the debate because it will either cement my vote for McCain (if I’m confident she can step in as pres) or it will pull my vote back to constitution party (if she’s as vague as she has been). Don’t get me wrong. I believe she is capable. But she’s got to show people she is. Yes, we can look at Alaska, but she has got to speak and be heard.

    To be continued…….. the debate should be eye opening. Oh, did you read that Gwen Ifil (sp?) who is moderating the debate is publishing a book supporting Obama? Oh yeah, there’s someone that’s going to be fair during the debate! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

14. Administrator said,

    October 1, 2008 at 9:27 am

    Yes, I do think that McCain’s camp has a very short leash on Palin. I’m not sure what the true reason is for that, but coupled with her recent interviews, it gives the feeling that they know that she doesn’t know enough yet to be let out on her own. Regarding her being capable, I’m sure she’s a very smart lady, but I disagree with you that the only problem is that the McCain camp has a short leash on her. I see problems with “her.” The reason I say that is because not only has she been vague with her answers, she has shown that she is not honest or candid as she pushes she is. For instance with her interview with Gibson, when it was painfully clear that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was after he explained it to her that it was clearly “not” the description of what she thought it was, she did not come out and say,”oh, I had not realized that was the common definition of the Bush doctrine, but this is what I think of that.” She didn’t come out and fix the fact that she was trying to pretend she knew something that she didn’t. It was obvious she didn’t know what it was because you could see, and sense, that she was “fishing” for the definition as she asked Gibson, “In what way?” Obviously he wanted to know if she even knew what the Bush Doctrine was as he “asked” her what her definition was. It showed her lack of knowledge AND lack of honesty, which had nothing to do with the McCain camp not letting her say her peace. Even the pathetic “I can see Russia from land in Alaska” as an answer to her experience with foreign policy with Russia has nothing to do with the McCain camp giving her a short leash. She did that all on her own. To add insult to injury they are trying to “cover” up that goofy remark by saying that they have “trade missions” with Alaska and something about Putin raising his head in the airspace there, heheheh. From what I’ve read, Alaska does have trade missions with other countries, particularly regarding fishing and seafoods, but nothing significant with Russia. Last night I read an article regarding another attempt at trying to cover up the goofy remark. Here’s a clip of what was written:

    “However, no Russian military planes have been flying even into that zone, said Maj. Allen Herritage, a spokesman for the Alaska region of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

    ‘‘To be very clear, there has not been any incursion in U.S. airspace in recent years,’’ Herritage said. ”

    Full articles here http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1193872,palinrussia093008.article

    What it looks like to me is that the McCain camp knows that what Palin said was goofy, and they are scrambling to fix it, not come out and be honest about it that she hasn’t really had any foreign policy dealings with Russia. Why not just admit that? I would be understandable. She’s obviously not
    admitting it. And we’re supposed to think that she’s being transparent with us?

    When Couric asked Palin to give any examples aside from Franny and Freddie for McCain pushing for more regulation (and thus her claim that McCain is a “maverick”), Couric had to ask Palin “3″ times, before Palin finally said, “I’ll find some and get back to you.” Palin was obviously trying to snowball us with her avalanche of words, “maybe” hoping at the end that we don’t notice she didn’t have a good answer to the question. Palin is supporting McCain, shouldn’t she have had an answer to such a basic question? This has nothing to do with the McCain camp not giving her space.

    I know there are other examples that have bothered me about Palin, but shortly I’m gonna have to do chores and stuff and I want to look more into what you said about 95% of nuclear waste is being recycled. So far I haven’t found any references that confirm that, but rather that we are currently storing about 56,000 tons of nuclear waste. I even found an article that mentioned that the U.S. even “imports” nuclear waste from places like Italy. I have found references that there are promising ways to reprocess nuclear waste, but they’re still working on making the facility to test it out. Can you point me in the right direction to read about 95% of our nuclear waste is being recycled? I’d like to know how it’s being recycled, too. Some claim that it’s very expensive and also not an extremely safe process. I also want to know what you think about DU being used by our military.

    Oh, just for the record, I do not think that there is no place for war. I believe there is a place and a season for everything. I don’t feel confident that many of the wars the U.S. has engaged in have been for good reasons. Plus I don’t like the way the U.S. is cavalier about exercising their military might on foreign lands. I tend to agree with the statement purpose of Veterans Against the Iraq War. You can read it here, just scroll down to the statement purpose section.

    http://vaiw.org/vet/index.php

    I also find the stance of Iraq Veterans Against the Iraq War noteworthy. Here’s a link to 10 reasons why they are against the war.

    http://ivaw.org/faq

    I was also surprised to see that there are quite a few Vets who do not like McCain. My computer is freezing up, and I really need to go right now, but you can google “McCain +veterans,” and you’ll find some articles there where some Vets don’t think he’ll be a good commander in chief (to put it mildly). It’s an eye-opener to read “why” they think that. I’ll come back and add the links that I’ve found, but right now my computer won’t let me cut and paste, so I’ll have to reboot to do it later.

    Oh, regarding McCain’s wife adopting children, that’s McCain’s “wife’s” deeds, not his. People with that kind of money can do things independently and not ask for their husband’s approval. Mia Farrow adopted lots of kids, but that doesn’t make Woody Allen a saint. Anyway, more on that later.

    Marla

15. patti said,

    October 1, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Quick note on Palin then I’ll have to defer till later for the other stuff. Shawn Hannity had Palin on today to talk about Ifil being the moderator tomorrow and being in Obama’s back pocket and also some policy issues and all of a sudden something hit me. She sounded great on Hannity and by no means was devoid of the policies she believes in, etc. One of the things they chatted about was that the MSM edits out so much of what she says that she sounds like an idiot. I know that’s true of the Gibson interview because both her and McCain came out and showed what she really said (that Gibson conveniently misquoted to make her look bad knowing most people wouldn’t know that). I think the real reason the Gibson and Couric interviews were SOOOOOOO bad is because they editted the crap out of them. Everyone knows they want Obama to win. They are not shy about that. They’ll do anything to make Palin look bad because she energized the base so much. Hopefully, even with Ifil NOT being objective, Palin will have a good chance tomorrow to say what she needs to say. Like I said, uneditted today on Hannity, she was great. BTW, Ronald Reagan avoided interviews with the press because he knew they were so totally biased. I am starting to believe that’s why Palin is not interviewing. She really doesn’t care what the MSM thinks.

    Yeah, I remember her answer with Couric about “I’ll find out.” I agree she should have just come out and said she wasn’t sure about McCain’s total history and she would learn it. However, I also understand that being so under scrutiny from people you KNOW seethingly hate you must be very difficult. So I’ll give her a little bit of benefit of the doubt with that one. But I do believe the editting taking place is evil. And I do believe if someone is not sure of something they should just be straight about it. In political elections, I almost expect some of this though. Not that it’s right, but I’ve never seen an election in my adult life (any election) where it hasn’t happened. Just a side note there.

    That said, stand by for my political flip flop after a long conversation with my husband today………..:) Now I know why politicians change their minds sometimes.

    patti

16. Administrator said,

    October 1, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Hey Patti:

    I’ve got to make this quick, too, but I did want to add the links that I meant to add this AM. I’m wondering if you’ve seen these videos and what you think about them? The fact that there are other “senators” on these clips who were with McCain in Vietnam makes these videos hard to ignore. Just scroll down to where the videos are embedded on the pages. They aren’t too long, so should be quick and easy to watch.

    http://polidics.com/ethics/fellow-pows-say-john-mccain-was-a-coward-and-a-traitor-in-viet-nam.html

    and

    http://polidics.com/iraq-war/is-john-mccain-sane.html

    I agree with you on the media editing stuff and making certain people look stupid. I think that happened to Dobson years ago, and he, too, refused to do interviews for that reason. And it’s true that the interview with Gibson regarding “the war being God’s war,” was taken out of context. However, I did see the original video, and if you’re not careful, it could be understood the way Gibson relayed it. But if you listen carefully, that was not what Palin said. They did apologize for it later and corrected themselves. BUT there was something on the video that was questionable to me, and that was she seemed to insinuated that putting in the pipeline was God’s will. THAT was questionable to me.

    I was perplexed about your comments about Obama serving only 143 days in the senate when, as I mentioned he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate in January 2005. So I did google it, and what I found was that he clocked in 143 days with the senate because that’s how many days they were in session. It’s not like he was playing hooky. Those were the number of days they had sessions. And that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t work on the issues while not in session. Consider if there are over 500 bills to pass. They need to read up on all those bills and understand all the nuances before voting. There’s lots of reading and work to do. Which brings me to the “present” vote. As far as I understand, voting present doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t decide anything. You can vote present for other reasons like you don’t agree with all the provisions on the bill. So voting present is like a heads up that you are not saying “no” because you are willing to compromise, but as the bill stands you don’t support it. It can also mean that you don’t know enough about the bill to vote yes or no. And really if that is the case, it’s the more responsible thing to do than vote yes or no on something you aren’t fully briefed on. Other senators do the same thing, as far as I’ve read.

    I’ll reserve comment on Palin until after tomorrow’s debate. I watched her recent interview with Couric and McCain today, so can throw in my 2 cents there as well later.

    Okay, night!

    Marla

17. patti said,

    October 3, 2008 at 2:24 am

    I hate not being able to sleep. On the other hand, it does give me time to respond here……

    As far as Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. I did not know they were pro-abortion but that’s really not my point. My point was they were good leaders as far as their countries went. Would I have voted for them? No, not if they were pro-abortion. But that doesn’t negate that they were good leaders and did some good things.

    As far as the lawsuit against Obama. They’re doing everything they can to stall it past the election so it will then be too late. Again, he does not care about the rule of law or this country or he would just come out with what needs to be shown and prove his eligibility. It was okay for them to question whether McCain was eligible to run because he was born in a military hospital in Panama, but when conservatives question his right to run, they cry fowl.

    Let me ask you a question. I know the answer to this – so let’s see if you do. Do you know what the Bush doctrine is? If you say it’s pre-emptive strikes militarily you’d only be 1/4 correct. That’s the issue I have with them asking Palin that question. Charles Krauthammer (sp?) is the one that coined that term years ago. There have been FOUR – yes four – “Bush Doctrines.” I’ll bet you could ask that question to ten people in government positions (senators, reps, governors, etc.) and maybe one or two might – might – be able to give you that answer. That was a baited and unfair question. Who cares what the Bush Doctrine is? She’s not running with or against Bush. Does she support pre-emptive strikes? Why not just ask her that question outright. Do you support pre-emptive strikes? Period. Why relate it to Bush unless you’re trying to tie them together (which Couric was)? That would have been a question she could have answered straight up. But instead, they chose to phrase it in such a way that ANYONE would have been taken back. I give her a pass on this one. I bet most of the govenors of this country wouldn’t know the answer to that question. And she’s enough of a Washington outsider I wouldn’t expect her to know. Of course, liberals had a hayday with it. Here’s trivia for the day – see if you can name the other 3 “Bush Doctrines.”

    I don’t care whether vets think we ought to be in Iraq. We are there. Period. The reality is the next president is going to inherit Iraq and we need to know what that president is going to do with it. I would rather have someone with McCain’s record and expertise then Obama who has neither. Obama is still arguing we should have never gone. At this point, it doesn’t matter. We are there. What will he do about it besides cut and run?

    As for the videos, I have several thoughts. My first one is, “yea, and what’s the other side of this story?” Here’s the deal, both sides are going to say things that are half truths and somehow, we the people are supposed to fish through and figure out what’s true and what isn’t. Has it occurred to you that our system of government would preclude ONE person from stopping any legislation from getting past? What’s the other side of this story? What was tacked on to that legislation? McCain could have voted no to not let it get out of committee, but he’s one person. One person does not have that power in our government. Perhaps he convinced others to vote no with him. Okay, that makes more sense. But you cannot put something like that squarely on one person’s shoulders. Those people are responsible for how they vote regardless of who encouraged their vote. That’s like Biden saying tonight that McCain voted against war funding because he voted no on a spending bill for the war. Of course, that spending bill had a 16 month time table for troop withdrawal that McCain felt like would be waving the white flag of defeat in Iraq and he thought that was wrong. So, it’s not all cut and dry. I want to know the other side. McCain has come out several times (this is known fact) and said when he was being tortured he several times told the vietnamese what they wanted to hear. He’s honest about that. As far as the POW/MIA issue, is he covering something up? I dunno. But again, this is one side of the story. Where’s the other side?

    Marla, 143 days in the senate that he was in session is the point. 143 days. I don’t care if there was 500 days in that time. How does 143 days actively working in the senate give Obama the experience he needs to run this country? It doesn’t! Hands down, Palin has more experience then he does. At least she’s run a state. Notably, many of our presidents have been governors before they were president. What has Obama done? Not a thing. If you think these guys actually read the legislation they vote on I’ve got waterfront property in Kansas to sell you. Most senators and reps will tell you that they do not read half of what they vote on. Their staff does and then tells them either how to vote or what’s in the legislation (in which case you’re relying on interpretation). I think this is totally wrong but most of them admit to it. Obama wasn’t reading anything when the senate wasn’t in session except for “How to run for president when you have no experience.” And that not reading legislation gets me in my craw especially when that legislation is a 450 page bailout bill that has pork tacked on all over it!

    Please look to see how many times *most* senators vote “present.” This is a cop-out. It’s not showing that he’s disagrees with some portion of a bill. It’s showing that he can’t make a decision and is trying to please everyone. Obama voted present because he didn’t want to be on record for voting for some of the crap that has come out of this democrat congress this past two years. 137 times? That many times he couldn’t come up with a yea or nay? I don’t buy it. Again, show me anything he has written or taken a stand on that we can put up to scrutiny and let it tell us he’s ready to be president. No one can. No one. Not even Obama. And if anyone wonders how he’ll do as president we need only to look to the mess he left the south side of Chicago in as a “community organizer.” Let’s start amassing accomplishments of his. You can’t, because there aren’t any.

    As for McCain and Cindy adopting their child. They both clearly raised their kids. This was not a wealthy woman going off and doing something on her own. She went to John and asked him if they could take the baby and he told her yes (from previous article I told you about). He was an active part of raising that child. Please, Mia Farrow and Woody Allen couldn’t hold a candlestick to the McCain’s. That’s an insult.

    We can nitpick these guys’ lives to pieces. Neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin are perfect people. They are all sinners. They have all made decisions they regret in their personal lives and their professional lives. We are not going to find a perfect “biblical” candidate because Jesus isn’t running. The question in this election, and every election for that matter is, “what philosophy does one think is the best for this country?” Because that’s really what we’re voting on. We’re voting on a philosophy of either socialism that goes totally against what our founding fathers intended, or for a republic that they established. That’s the bottom line, it’s a philosophy. This country was founded as a republic. While I do not believe the republicans have done all they can to keep that republic the way it was intended, they are far closer then the dems are. Far closer. In making the decision of who is going to keep/get us closer to what this country was founded we have to look at people’s character (what they do when it’s just them and God alone), their alliances (the people they keep company with), their attitude about life, etc. While McCain/Palin are not perfect, they are the closest thing we have to what our founding fathers intended for government. They’ve got 4 years to prove themselves. If we are wrong, we will vote them out in 4yrs as our founders intended us to be able to do. But John McCain has more character in his pinky finger then Barack Obama has in his whole body. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Nearly everyone Obama is associated with is either a corrupt dem (Rangle anyone?) or publicly socialist. His alliances are scary. Very scary. And they say a lot about who he is. We are judged by the company we keep. And he should be judged that way. Although the media is so in love with him they give him a pass on everything.

    If there were another viable candidate/party running that could win this election and not leave us with Obama I’d be there in a heart beat. But there isn’t. I voted Paul in the primary knowing he is a constitutionalist. I think a third party is ripe for getting bigger in this country, but it will take time. God told us to obey those that have the rule over us. In one instance he was talking about civil government. In another he was talking about our pastors/spiritual leaders. If we are to obey our civil government then I think God does want us to put people in those positions that are more closely aligned with biblical principles. ie. Life is valuable, character matters, etc. I do not believe a person can be a christian and vote Obama. That is a contradiction to what the bible says and christians are to believe. I do not like that Palin is a woman. But I did not pick her. I can only vote for the options I have and I believe to not vote is to put evil in office (Obama). I think that’s just as unbiblical.

    Marla, how do you vote (meaning, how could anyone live up to your standard of picking a candidate)? I disagree with the Amish not voting. I know they don’t vote – but I think it’s wrong. They live in a country where God has given us the freedom to choose our leaders for good or for bad. By not voting they are essentially allowing evil to triumph. That is NOT biblical. My best friend and her husband do not entangle themselves with this world at all. They have no TV, they don’t listen to the radio, etc. But when it comes to elections, they review material they can get from biblical sources and they vote. They vote because, while this is not a theocracy, we can choose people that are the best aligned with the principles God lays out in the bible. So one can vote and not be entangled in the affairs of this world. Although I do not believe there is anything wrong with christians engaging in their society. I love the saying (forget the owner of it off the top of my head) – For evil to triumph, good people need only do nothing. And I probably didn’t even get that quoted perfectly (what can I say, it’s 2:30am). My point is, we vote for the person who is closest to the biblical principles God’s Word lays out and the rest is up to God. And I’m sorry, Obama is no where near anything about God. NOTHING. Mike Huckabee is a saved man. But when I looked at his history and his character, I could not vote for him. There are saved people who have poor character and unsaved people that have tons of character. I’d take the latter over the former. But as a side note, both McCain and Palin have testimonies of salvation. McCain preached to the men salvation and the bible when he was a prisoner (this was another one of those character things that was in that article). Side note – if I keep going I might remember all of them without actually getting my magazine back.

    Debate tonight. Palin was way more herself. They unleashed her. And I do think the interviews were truly meant to make her look bad. She is a little folksy for me, but that is her true nature. People close to her and those who have worked with her say that is who she is. Biden was a typical politician. I think no one “won” and no one “lost.” There was a clear contrast in policies (philosophy as I stated above) and that’s what people will be voting on. Quite frankly, Obama/Biden’s flat out socialist way of taxing those over $250K to redistribute the wealth is un-American. It’s socialist. And there are a lot of small business owners that will suffer with that. They don’t mention that most people that make $50K a year or less don’t even pay taxes because by the time they’ve taken all their deductions, there’s nothing left to tax. So they’re going to be giving money to people who don’t even pay taxes. That’s fair as Biden said tonight? How is that fair to those who do pay taxes? Oh, I’m gonna have to get off of that subject because I’m already having a hard time sleeping and that is going to make it much worse! Obama and Biden are evil personified. Period.

    I think Biden did a better job of staying on the talking points, but Palin was back to her normal self which I think was a good thing for her. Her philosophy falls in line with McCain’s (mostly) and since we’re voting on philosophy, my vote still falls that way (unless God drops someone better down between now and Nov. 4). I do believe Palin has the ability to be a Golda Meir and/or Margaret Thatcher in terms of her ability to lead. Not that I like that, but I believe she has the ability. And quite frankly, God can turn this however he wants. “The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord. As the rivers of water he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Prov. 21:1 ????? Don’t have my bible handy for that reference. That’s off the top of my head. God used Deborah, and he can use a Sarah if he wants to.

    Okay – my political flip flop. Now I know how politicians can do this. Because sometimes the more you learn about a subject, the more it changes your mind. I pulled out my stuff on nuclear power and Ron and I had a long talk about it. He clarified a few things and expounded on others for me. Keep in mind my husband is a science guy, he’s well read, and extremely smart. He also has been working in the area of alternative energy for 20yrs (has 3 patents in that direction). And, he’s totally opposed to nuclear.

    I was correct in that they can now recycle 95%. However, I used the term “waste” and it’s actually “fuel.” So they can recycle 95% of the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor. The “waste” part is not something I even thought of. That, he told me, is the pipes, the clothing, the tools, (you get the point) that they have to put in huge barrels and store at Yucca Mountain. That “waste” is not going away. It is what it is and will always be there. There is no recycling that. So he clarified the difference between those two things for me. We talked a lot about Three Mile Island (he lived on the East Coast – PA- most of his life). I showed him the stuff I had read on Three Mile Island and he vehemently disagreed with it and gave me many examples of the long term affects it had and the covering up they did. We talked about Chernobyl since I personally know someone that was there when it melted down. Anyway, bottom line, yes, they can recycle 95% of the spent fuel, but that does not take care of the large amounts of actual waste or the long term health affects to people working there or around a nuclear plant.

    We also talked about the other energy options available. He’s for all of them. Hydro is a biggie, clean coal, windmills, drilling for oil, etc. He is for everyone of them except nuclear. We talked about building nuclear and how it compares to hydro for example. The expense and numbers he talked about were huge.

    So – I will back pedal and say that after our long chat and a better understanding of nuclear I wouldn’t be happy to have a nuc plant in my back yard. I asked him how he squares that with voting for McCain and he said that he supports every other energy option on the table and no one is going to agree on every issue. Heck, even McCain and Palin don’t agree on drilling. He said he would fight nuclear, but believes that it truly won’t come to pass because they will drill first for oil and do natural gas pipelines which will likely render nuclear unneeded. But he said he would fight nuclear if it came up. So, there you have it.

    Okay – now I’m going to try and get some sleep. Maybe after I post on the health stuff.

    Night!

18. Administrator said,

    October 3, 2008 at 10:53 am

    Morning Patti:

    There were quite a few things in the VP debate that I wondered whether they were true or not, so I waited to see what discrepancies would surface. Here’s a link to one article

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_el_pr/debate_fact_check

    It’s no surprise that “both” parties were misleading and dishonest. This supports my original contention that a position like this will make Palin compromise with ethics and other issues. I don’t support this, and I do not feel okay about overlooking those things that I feel are not proper. The least I can do is not participate in it, which I do think is Biblical. Romans has a whole list of things that are evil and at the bottom of that list it states “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

    I feel that I would be “approving” those actions if I voted for these candidates, and I don’t. You can do it if you like, but it goes against “my” conscience of how I understand the Bible. The result of the above passage is that God gives these peoples’ minds up to depravity. They can no longer discern the truth because of their participation in it. A little lie eventually becomes a big lie, etc. Here’s the text in context.

    Romans 1:18-32

    “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
    24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

    I would like to highlight a few things on the above list that I think these politicians (including McCain AND Palin) fall into–coventousness, deceitful, boasters, proud, untrustworthy. (and probably a few more that is not public) They have no shame in their deceit as they flaunt it all across the nation. I think it’s evil.

    In Revelation John describes Babylon, and this is what he wrote:

    “4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

    We (Brian and I and our kids) would like to “come out from her and not partake of her sins and plagues.” We have discussed whether moving out of the U.S. would be an option for us or not.

    Now, I know that you think Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church, but we disagree because the description of Babylon does not fit the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church has no ports and no dealings with merchants of the world as described in Revelation.

    “3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.”

    You can read about “ships and other merchandise as the chapter progresses,”

    8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

    9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

    10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

    11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

    12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

    13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

    14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

    15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

    16And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

    17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

    18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

    19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

    20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.”

    As R.A Coombs wrote in “America the Babylon,” we think it is likely that Babylon as described in Revelation is the U.S. Now I know there are a lot of good people in the U.S. who try to help with world issues, but from the behavior of the U.S. in general here at home and abroad, I think we are headed for disaster (maybe even nuclear as Babylon is destroyed in one hour), and the fact that we have no good choices to vote for our leaders is confirmation to me that we (the U.S.) is in judgment. I will not vote for either party and condone their evilness.

    I can see that you are pretty much swayed towards McCain/Palin even when you see questionable things about him. I am not swayed toward either party. I see “both” sides have major evils. I didn’t even mention the Keating Five, which McCain was involved with. And although he was found not guilty, it shows his incredible lack of good judgment and tendency toward corruption. I also think he lacked good judgment (especially biblically) in choosing Palin. If he truly stood in the way to help recover POWs, then that just goes to show another aspect of his selfishness and lack of concern for the American people.

    And I just want to comment since you’re so against socialism and seem to believe that nothing good can come out from Obama because he’s a socialist. Apparently Golda Meir was a socialist. She belonged to a socialist party, but raised her money through capitalists. So if you think something good came out from her leadership, then why not Obama’s? You keep saying he’s evil, but I’m not completely sure why you’re saying that other than you think he lies (so does McCain and Palin) and that he’s either socialist or has socialistic tendencies (which Meir was, and you approve of her). What, did Obama murder someone? I’m not sure where all your hatred for him is coming out from. Honestly, he has not “one” shred of goodness? And McCain is a saint? Ha! Please. . .

    Oh, quickly before I quit. The Bush Doctrine. Yes, I realize that most people don’t know what it means, but not everyone is running for VP, either. My point was that she was not honest that she did not know what it meant. That put a big flag in front of me about her integrity. She has repeatedly shown that in her subsequent interviews, too. And seeing the debate results of what was true and false in the debate last night, I see that she is no different from the other politicians. She’s new, too, and she’s “already” misrepresenting and twisting facts. And yes, I think Gibson was very clear about his asking her if she was in favor of preemptive strikes. That was a clear a question and not beating around the bush at all like Palin has a tendency to do. I even saw it in the VP debate last night even though they had a chance to see the questions first. She danced all around what plan the McCain/Palin administration had for getting the troops home. I guess the only way to get them home is to win. But she didn’t even say that. Still couldn’t get away from beating around the bush. I hope she doesn’t talk like that with foreign leaders.

    Also I do know that the senators also have aides to help them understand all the bills presented to them, but they still have to read too and think to make decisions. You don’t just turn off your brain until you go into session. That’s ridiculous to think that just because you work on certain days your brain turns off to the issues. Now I’m not in favor of Obama, but I do think that you are not being reasonable regarding his ability to think. I’ve heard the man speak, and he does appear to me to be someone who has seriously considered many issues. I am impressed with him because he seems “cautious” and “appears” to have taken the time to consider many more issues that Palin has. It’s not like the only valuable time a person has is when he’s sitting in a senate meeting. That’s preposterous.

    I’m not voting, and I think it’s perfectly supported in the Bible to chose not to vote in this election. Both parties are a sham, not just evil Obama. To deny that is so naive.

    Okay, better run and start the day.

    Marla

19. patti said,

    October 3, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    Marla,

    When God gives someone a standard to live by and the scripture to back it up I think it’s important for that person to stick to their standard unless God shows them otherwise (”To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”). For me to wear pants would be a sin because God has shown me otherwise. For someone else to wear them (whether I agree or not) would not be unless God had shown them otherwise and they were deliberately disobeying. It is with that light that I see the stand that you take politically. It’s what God has shown you/your family, etc.

    I am curious though. I realize that Paul was writing to the NT church – I’m just thinking out loud is all. I have to wonder (based on your take of those scriptures) what God thought of his choice in Samson as a judge, or David as king or Solomon as well? All of these men exhibited some of these same sins and yet God used them in mighty ways. Did God overlook their sin? No. They suffered the consequences of it. I guess it seems to me that in taking the stand you have on who to vote for (or not), the only one able to meet the standard God has set in Romans is Jesus Christ himself. I’m not sure that that’s what God intended. In the OT they had the ten commandments. And yet these men failed in several of those. By the standard you have set for voting according to Romans, they shouldn’t have been leaders of their day.

    Again, I am not saying to vote for evil if you truly see it that way. I’m simply pointing out that God allowed this country to be brought into being with sinful man at its helm. I find it hard to believe that given the priveleges God’s given us to live here that removing oneself from the very process that could potentially produce positive change is what he intended. Ha! I finally remembered that quote I was trying to write last night. “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” If those of us who are christians and believe in righteousness and holiness do not do what little bit we can to influence those that make policy decisions in our country, then we are literally sitting back and allowing evil to triumph. For our family (as yours has chosen) we choose to fight that by involving ourselves in the process.

    I think I’ve made pretty clear that we don’t agree with McCain/Palin on everything. But we do believe that they are more likely to influence this country positively when it comes to biblical principles (life, personal responsibility, etc).

    My only point in bringing up Golda Meir and Thatcher is that they were woman who effectively lead and that God *could* should he so choose, use Sarah Palin in the same way. I wasn’t trying to “approve.” She was a woman who was able to lead. To me, that only proves woman can lead (if needed). As Deborah did. I find it funny that Golda Meir was a socialist but used capitalist means to get what she needed (money). I think that in itself is a little damning to socialism. The premise of socialism is redistribution of wealth. If you look at any of the socialist countries that have existed, that kind of system leads to a mostly very poor population with the government keeping all the money for itself. Frequently with the lower class literally starving while the government lives lavishly. How would that good for America?

    As you have seen, we’re pretty political in this house. When there are speeches given (even by Obama) we watch/listen to them. Interviews, everything. We by no means see/hear all of them. We look at voting records, who someone aligns themselves with, etc. Our view of Obama has come from his speeches (out of his mouth), his history, who his friends are, etc. Nope. McCain ain’t no saint. We are as far as the East is from West on immigration from him. And he’s had his share of poor decisions. Again, we are looking at the philosophy and who has better character. Actually, Palin did finally answer the question about the troops in Iraq. She said the sign of “victory” would be when Iraq takes over it’s own security and can maintain it.

    I actually think Obama is very calculating. I think he’s thinking all of the time about how he’s going to advance what he sees as the best agenda for America. I think he’s constantly thinking about how to cover up activities he’s been involved with that are not politically expedient. Nope. I think he’s thinking all the time. We just fundamentally disagree with what his agenda is. Our impression of Obama is he set his sights on the presidency not because it’s a lofty goal to want to serve one’s country as president but because it is something he can “conquer” and say he was the first “black” to do. For him, his speeches and ads are all about him. Not about what America needs. That’s how we came to our conclusions about him.

    Since you have considered moving out of the US. 1) What country can you think of that doesn’t seemingly have the issues America does? Or is it simply that you think of moving because you believe America is Babylon?

    2) Since you disagree with America, the politics, what we’re doing as a country, etc. do you partake of the freedoms she offers (speech) and also the responsibilities (taxes, etc.)?

    3) How do you guys square living in the state you do considering it clearly violates a lot of Romans 1:18-32 in terms of its political leaders. I understand you don’t vote for them, but do you send your tax dollars to them?

    I am wondering….

    Well, Ron wants his computer time so off I go.

    patti

20. Administrator said,

    October 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Hi Patti:

    I want do deviate from the topic for a moment. I want to thank you for bringing up Golda Meir because it rekindled my interest in Zionists. I had only a passing knowledge of it, so I looked more into it last night. Wow, did I learn something!

    I had known that not all Zionists were religious, i.e. that some of them, even though they are of Jewish decent, are atheist. But what I didn’t know is that there is a big rift between Zionists and Orthodox Jews. Actually, that’s putting it very mildly, but as I was searching for info on Zionists, I stumbled onto this video, which piqued my interest. Please watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&feature=related (Anti-Zionist Jewish Protestors)

    So that lead me to watch this one which gave a brief explanation of the position of the Orthodox Jews on the subject of Israel as a nation. This rabbi claimed that the Jews are supposed to be in exile, and it is against their religion to have a state, so what the Zionists are doing is against their religion. Here’s the clip of that one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUTRjQSihk&NR=1 (Jewish group says Israel (Zionism) should not exist.)

    And a more detailed explanation of the position of the Orthodox Jews is explained in this interview with a few rabbis and Harold Channer. I really urge you to watch this one, perhaps with Ron, too. If you watch the whole thing, you may notice that one of the comments this rabbi says is that it is against the Jewish religion to be political. Also interesting is his mention of the comment of “the Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth” is misrepresented. What an eye opener this is! If you’re really interested in the Jews, then you must watch this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GHPj8TaBAM&feature=related (Recent AntiZionist Rabbis meeting with Ahmadienjad)

    Okay regarding taxes, sure we pay them. That’s part of submitting to the law of the land. No problem there. As far as moving, Brian and I discussed it a bit more yesterday and Brian believes that there really isn’t any place that hasn’t been affected by America anyway. Bottom line is as long as we can continue to live according to our Christian faith, there is no need to move and likely some places are even less tolerant of Christians than here.

    Before my computer freezes up, I’ll quit for now, and perhaps continue later.

    Take care!

    Marla

21. patti said,

    October 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    These were interesting. I’m not sure what I think of them off the bat. Initially, the claim that they are supposed to be in “exile” strikes me as off. When Christ came and the jews rejected him, in the book of Acts God told Paul to go to the gentiles. There was nothing said about the Jews being put into “exile.” So, from a biblical standpoint, I do not think this is correct. But that is just my first reaction. I will need to mull this over longer. Additionally, these rabbi’s are operating off of old testament bible (obviously!) and all I can figure is they somehow think they are still wandering in the wilderness????? Bibilically, this just doesn’t jive. But again, I will look through the scriptures.

    Some other thoughts that strike me. He said they have lived peaceably for thousands of years amongst other peoples with little difficulty. History proves that is untrue. What about WWII? Hitler killed millions of jews (and poles, etc). So somehow saying they lived in peace with these people doesn’t make sense. They made have been peaceful, but these other people still had it in for them.

    The one thing Ron mentioned was that as God’s chosen people, God promised them a land filled with milk and honey as a nation. A physical land. They had a physical land for thousands of years that was lost over time via wars, acquisitions, etc. To have that nation re-estbalished physically in 1948 seems to be the fulfillment of prophecy. When Christ returns he will return to the Mt. Olivet in Israel.

    Israel as a nation today is secular. They are not a theocracy as God established them to be. However, prophetically, Christ will rule and reign on the throne in Jerusalem so obviously there must be a Jersualem for that to happen.

    Here’s a short history lesson (provided by my hub). Israel as a land was owned by the British for years. As was India and South Africa, etc. That land was known to be Israel from biblical accounts, artifacts, etc. In 1948 Britain gave that land to the Jews as a place for them to live as a people. Some jews were already living in the land it’s just that it was run by Britain. It wasn’t until Britain handed the land over to Israel and they established their own government that surrounding Arab nations went berserk. But those people lived there before 1948 too. So what changed? I don’t have a good answer for that but it makes one wonder. God said he would gather his people together again and it would be in Israel as a physical nation. That prophecy is also being fulfilled today as more and more jews move back to Israel.

    I have my doubts that this group speaks for all Orthodox Jews. But I want to look at some old testament prophecy further. Another thing I am always reminded of when I here of the fighting over there is God said that Isaac and Ishmael would forever be at enmity with one another. This is nothing new. Arabs and Jews have been fighting since the birth of Ishmael and Isaac. For that reason, I think all this push for peace, etc. is worthless. God said they will always fight, and they will. Interesting stuff though. Thanks for sharing.

    The rapture is coming soon. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

    patti

22. Administrator said,

    October 5, 2008 at 2:02 am

    Hi Patti:

    Those were interesting videos, huh? I’m still planning on researching their position more, but it does seem to put some pieces together for me, which I think makes sense. But commenting on some of your thoughts above, the Jews have experienced several exiles, not just one when they were wandering out in the wilderness with Moses. Two of the more popularly known exiles were after Solomon’s Temple (known as the First Temple) was destroyed (remember they were exiled under King Nebuccanezzar), and then the 2nd exile that occurred was after the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans about 70 years AD. It is believed that the NT was written “before” the Second Temple was destroyed. In the NT, it is only “prophesied” that it would be destroyed, but it had not yet occurred. If you want to read up more on Jewish exile, try googling “Jewish diaspora.” At any rate, after they were exiled after the destruction of the second temple, they did not have a state. So, yes, the idea that the Jews have been in exile for 2000 years is “broadly accepted by Jews and historians.” That’s why Jews are all over the world.

    I don’t know if you watched the 3rd video, which was much more detailed, but the rabbi did discuss the Jewish Holocaust. What I think he was saying was that they think the Holocaust happened to them because they were not spiritually right with God, and were becoming secularized, if you will. Remember Zionism (the idea of making their own state) began in the 1800s, and the Holocaust happened in the early to mid 1900s. Prior to that, for the most part, the Jews did appear to live pretty peaceably within other nations.

    In response to your comment that the Israelites had a physical land for “thousands” of year, that is incorrect. Abraham lived about 2000 B.C. God promised his descendants the land of Canaan, which he wandered around in, but didn’t actually possess it. His descendants ended up in Egypt for about 400 years, and by the time Moses brought them out it was about 1500 B.C., upon which they entered the land, Canaan. This started the time of the Judges which lasted about 490 years. After that period, the era of the Kings began with the first king being Saul. The period of the kings lasted 490 years after which they were exiled (first exile). That period lasted 70 years, after which they were allowed back into the land and built the second temple. Then after being ruled by various empires, the Romans destroyed the temple (the second temple) and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They were again exiled throughout the civilized worlds until our modern era. And still for the most part are scattered throughout the world today.

    Yes, Jesus is supposed to return to Jerusalem, but Jerusalem existed “before” there was a modern state of Israel. Jerusalem was already there.

    Regarding your comment that, “God said he would gather his people together again and it would be in Israel as a physical nation,” the rabbi actually answered that. He said that it is “after” the messiah returns that all the Jews would be gathered together again. You are making the assumption that the Jews have to gather together “before” Jesus returns. Jesus can return even if there is not one single Jew there.

    As far as this group speaking for all the Orthodox Jews, I don’t know, either, but I did check out their website. http://www.nkusa.org/ Wiki states that there is no official count of their membership, but does say this:

    “The Jewish Virtual Library, published by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), puts their numbers at 5,000.”

    Regarding your last paragraph, you wrote, “God said that Isaac and Ishmael would forever be at enmity with one another.” Do you have the scripture verse for that? In particular I want to see if it states that Isaac and Ishmael would be “forever” at enmity with one another. The passage commonly used to say that Ismael and Isaac would fight is from Genesis 16:12 when it describes what Ishmael will be like. Here’s the passage:

    “12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

    While this is the passage that is used to show that there would be enmity between Isaac and Ishmael, it doesn’t say they will fight “forever.” It doesn’t even say that their “descendants” will fight forever. And even now people dispute whether the Arabs and the Zionists are even the true descendants of Abraham. They claim to be, but genealogies are broken and lost. Remember there were even converted Jews and Muslims who have no blood lineage to Abraham. We can’t even be sure that the Zionists are even “true Jews.” I’ll add one last scripture verse to show why I think that there will be “false” Jews.” It’s from Revelation 3:9.

    “9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

    Notice it says, “synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. . .” This shows us that there are people who will go so far as to “lie” to associate with a religion. In this case, people want to lay claim to the land of Israel even if they may not be rightful heirs to the land. Especially if they are secular atheists as are some Zionists. Careful. So just as Jesus, himself, exposed that there was a synagogue of Satan, could it be now that there is a whole nation of Israel that is of Satan?

    Okay, now I’m pooped. Hope there aren’t too many error as I’m too beat to proof read right now. Better get to bed. . . zzzzz

    Marla

23. Administrator said,

    October 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Have you been able to do anymore research on the above topic?

    I’ve been doing a little reading here and there when time permitted. There have been a few things that I wanted to share on here, but have not fully collected all my thoughts on it first to make a proper post. However, I did want to comment on something I just read recently regarding the belief that Zionism (the creation of a state of Israel) as a fulfillment of prophesy was popularized by Hal Lindsay and Tim La Haye (The Late Great Planet Earth) in the 1970s. According to this webpage, http://www.exilemm.com/e-sub-zion.shtml , before Lindsay and La Haye promoted the idea that Zionism is a fulfillment of prophesy, it was not a concept originally held by theologians that Israel had to become a state for prophesy to occur. Here’s a quote from that webpage:

    “The great theologians of traditional Christianity, be they Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, did not believe the Bible foretold the creation of a Jewish State. Such an idea never crossed the redoubtable minds of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or John Calvin. and was never hinted at in their prolific writings.”

    I found this particularly interesting since I became a Christian around 1984, so this would mean that the ideas promulgated by La Haye and Lindsay were already widespread in the Christian circles. And likely why I, too, had heard and was taught that Zionism was the fulfillment of prophesy. I had not realized that it was a “new” concept.

    Now having said that, it still may be true that Zionism is a fulfillment of prophesy, but not in the way we Christians have been conditioned to think it is. Because as far as I know, the Antichrist is to seat himself in the Temple and declare himself as God before the Messiah (Jesus) will return to boot him out. So, we do know that scripture prophesies that the temple will be built again for the Antichrist to seat himself. So it’s remains to be seen whether Zionism will play a part in the rebuilding of the Temple and providing a seat for the Antichrist. Obviously that is not helping the true Jews or the Christians because when the Antichrist gains his power, those who hold the testimony of Jesus will be persecuted and many killed under his authority.

    Anyway, I realize there is nothing I can do to change the course of prophesy (i.e. not within my power to stop Zionism as the Orthodox Jews are attempting). So long as we can continue to live out Christian lives, all we can do is watch as prophesy unfolds (an not take the mark of the beast!) Although people can mean things for bad, God will use it for good. But I will say that I’m finding this all interesting reading because I was already familiar with the concepts of oil and the drug trafficking as being major reasons for the wars we’ve engaged in, and only in passing have I seen references to Zionism as being part of the mix. I never got into reading about that one, but now, it makes a lot of sense. The link above, http://www.exilemm.com/e-sub-zion.shtml has an interesting and relatively short overview of how Zionism mixes into the mash. So, now I can understand why some claimed that the Zionists were somehow involved with 9/11. I have to admit that one perplexed me a bit. Very complicated, but what isn’t these days? True? Who knows, but interesting anyway.

    Oh, one last comment before I dash is regarding your comment “all this push for peace, etc. is worthless.” I find that comment interesting in light of the sermon on the mount, commonly referred to as the beatitudes. In particular is the portion that reads:

    Matthew 5:9

    “9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

    I find it hard to believe that God would state such a thing if seeking for peace is “worthless.”

    Okay, must dash for now.

    Marla

24. patti said,

    October 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Marla,

    I haven’t had time to do anything or research anything. I am buried in preparations for another court appearance with Marie’s attorney in a few weeks. It requires writing a VERY long letter to the judge. The last one took me a week and I wasn’t doing school. So now I’m really under the gun. We met with The Witch yesterday in our attorney’s office and it did not go well. It was a pretty good low voiced shouting match (if there is such a thing) and ended with, “we’ll see you in court.”

    I’ll have to reserve comments and research for a week or so out as I have to prepare for battle. We’re just praying for God to give us favor in the judge’s eyes. Since the judge has already stated he’s not likely to rule for us, it will take God doing what he did last time with this judge to bring about victory for us.

    Gotta go.

    patti

25. Administrator said,

    October 8, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Thanks for the heads up. Sorry to hear about the court appearance crap. I pray for the best possible results. Why does the letter have to be so long? Is that a requirement, or just something you feel you need to do?

    Okay, take care, and let us know how things come along.

    Marla

• Pages

  • About
  • Andrea’s Natural Anti-bug Treatment for Dogs
  • Dad’s Obituary
  • Marlene’s Natural Deoderant Suggestion
  • Onion Puree Soup Recipe
  • Packing Herbs
  • The Beginning of Steele’s Chronicle

• Recent Posts

  • 02/05/2012: Plutonium: A History of the World’s Most Dangerous Element
  • 01/23/2012: The Plutonium Files
  • 01/20/2012: Mixed Bag
  • 01/18/2012: More Rice!
  • 01/12/2012: The Philippine Rice Terraces
  • 12/31/2011: December 31, 2011
  • 12/03/2011: Just Checking In
  • 11/24/2011: Happy Thanksgiving 2011!!!
  • 11/21/2011: Mexico City Part II
  • 11/18/2011: Lost Worlds–Secret Cities of the A-bomb

• Recently Commented

  • Plutonium: A History of the World’s Most Dangerous Element
    02/08/2012 11:46 pm
    1 Comment
  • The Plutonium Files
    01/26/2012 11:22 pm
    1 Comment
  • More Rice!
    01/21/2012 10:03 pm
    1 Comment
  • The Philippine Rice Terraces
    01/18/2012 12:53 am
    2 Comments
  • Just Checking In
    12/31/2011 04:14 pm
    3 Comments
  • The Getty Villa Museum in Malibu
    11/26/2011 08:34 pm
    2 Comments
  • Crafting Update
    11/09/2011 06:53 pm
    2 Comments
  • Supplements
    10/03/2011 04:44 pm
    3 Comments
  • Popular Wheel Mechanics Class
    09/29/2011 11:04 pm
    2 Comments
  • Back to Spinning
    09/28/2011 08:37 pm
    2 Comments

• Archives

  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006

• Categories

  • Anything goes
  • Book Reviews
  • Church Issues and Bible Interpretations
  • cooking
  • cross stitching
  • family stuff
  • felt projects
  • food and restaurants
  • gardening
  • God
  • Health-related–Natural Alternative Treatments
  • Historical Trivia
  • History
  • Hmmm Moments
  • hobbies
  • humor
  • knitting and crocheting
  • Movie commentary
  • museums
  • Playing the Tourist
  • quilting
  • quotes
  • Spin Off from Steele's Chronicle
  • Steele's MDS Herb Chronicle
  • Treatment Decisions
  • Uncategorized

• Search

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Wordpress
  • 
  • 
  • options

Design by Beccary · Sponsored by Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS