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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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