Faith in the White House

I have been very critical of the current President, I never voted for him and I have made personal friends very unhappy with me for some of the comments I have made about him. If you are one of the offended, I'm genuinely sorry, not for what I said, or that you were offended, but that you were gullible enough, so tied to the Repugnant party, and so spiritually undiscerning that you allowed your self to be sucked into the web of distortions and innuendo that was used to portray GWB as a christian.

The man is a Biblically illiterate, "christian in name only", who neither understands the God of the Bible, nor believes in the true God of the Bible. Christianity is not a philosophy, contrary to what Bush said way back in the primaries prior to the 2000 election.

And anyone who claims that Muslims and the Taliban pray to the same God that Christians do, is delusional.


1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


And if the Bible is not literally true, then what parts are false?? What parts do you believe sir and why?? Is the Bible like a smorgasbord, sir, take the things you want, and the rest you throw out with the trash?

II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Hey, George, what part of all, don't you understand?

And since when has the theory of evolution been proved? If that's the case, I assume you also believe in global warming. Dimwit!!

*********************************************************************************************


The following is a loose transcript of the conversation on Nightline between Jorge the Younger Shrub, and Cynthia McFadden.

It is possible to view the interview on the web. The transcript leaves on the interviewers questions, in particular she mentions Muslims and the Taliban in the question about who he prays to.

Faith in the White House

The private religious life of a president has always garnered public interest. As President-elect Obama prepares to take his place in the White House, many are wondering which church he will choose to attend in Washington, D.C.

Like his father, Bush is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington and often attends services at Camp David. He told McFadden that he prays in the Oval Office and said that faith "has made a great difference in my life."

"There is a sense of calm in the Oval Office, where there are obviously a lot of dramatic moments and a lot of, you know, pressure, but there is calm in the Oval Office," Bush said. "People say, 'But how do you know that it's because of prayer?' And I guess the answer is because of faith is how I know -- I can't prove it for you. People, you know, say it's just a crutch. For me, it's not a crutch, for me it's the realization of a power of a universal God and recognition that the God came manifested in human and then died for sins. Now, all of this was hard for me to understand for a period of time and I am still trying to understand as best as my human mind can possibly do so. But in the understanding and in the search and in the quest, I find comfort and strength."

When asked if he thinks that he prays to the same God as those with different beliefs, Bush said, "I do."

"I do believe there is an Almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people," Bush said, but he drew a distinction when it comes to those who perpetrate terror.

"I think anyone who murders to achieve their religious objective is not a religious person," he said. "They may think they're religious, and they play like they're religious, but I don't think they're religious. They are not praying to the God I pray to ... the god of peace and love."

When asked if he believes the Bible is literally true, the president said that he's "not a literalist" when it comes to reading the Bible, but rather focuses on the important lessons he believes the Bible teaches.

As for whether one can believe in the Bible and believe in evolution, Bush said he does, adding that "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.

"I think that God created the Earth, created the world," he said. "I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty, and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

************************************************************************************************

If you voted for this fool, you should fall on your face before God and ask His forgiveness for voting this man into office.

One consolation, God is sovereign, so even though you acted the fool, and supported this irrational, "christian in name only", God had some reason for allowing him to be our President. I would guess to test the discernment of those who claim the name of Christ. And to punish this nation by using GWB and his irrationality, to destroy the economy of the United States of America.


An Addendum:



It seems that I'm not the only one appalled by Jorge's confessions of disbelief.

Here's an article calling out the "Religious Right" for their support of Jorge the Younger Shrub.

Chuck Baldwin

Farm Related News and Comments

First, an apology to all who come here and have found nothing new lately. I seem to have numerous things which have interfered with my blogging. Now that harvest is officially over and all the hog manure has been hauled to the fields, I should have more time in the evenings to post something.

Second, I have also struggled a little with what topics I should post about. This is my blog, I may post or say some things which those of you who know me may find controversial or just plain wrong. Feel free to disagree, you're welcome to comment about what you find objectionable, but I'm going to say what I think. So, in the coming weeks I intent to tackle some subjects which may be less than politically correct.

Tonight I want to talk about some current events in the ag community and their effect on you and on me.

The December corn futures reached an all time high this summer, with corn contracts reaching $7.99 1/4 per bushel in the last few days of June. Since corn has become a source of energy with the increase production of ethanol, the two charts are almost parallel in their upward and then their downward trends.





With the recent fall in oil prices, as well as in corn prices, suddenly the hue and cry over the high cost of food caused by the high corn prices seems to have completely disappeared. Since this hubbub was a foolish argument before, it is clear for all to see now. A box of corn flakes still costs the same at the supermarket, but the value of the corn used in those corn flakes has gone from 7 cents a bowl to 3 cents a bowl. The high price of food was never really attributable to the high price of the food ingredients nearly as much as it was the high cost of energy, any type of energy.



The following is a newspaper article on the subject By David Kruse author and producer of the CommStock Report. CommStock Report

Read Commentary by David Kruse as it is published weekly in newspapers around the Midwest.


Food Prices

The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) attempted to use higher corn prices, which they blamed on ethanol, as a diversion to give them an excuse to raise food prices. The facts are not on their side. Food only comprises 19% of the food dollar and only a very small portion of that is corn related. Blaming higher food prices on corn and ethanol as the GMA has done to explain food price hikes is like claiming that the tail wags the dog.

Higher energy prices have had significantly more impact on food prices than the cost of the raw food ingredients. Ethanol had more impact lowering the cost of motor fuel then it did raising food costs. When Texas Governor, Rick Perry asked the EPA to roll back the RFS, the subsequent EPA study conducted showed ethanol raised feed prices costing Texas livestock producers $1.8 billion but saved Texas motorists $4 billion, for a net savings.

While complaining about higher corn costs, lashing out at ethanol, many food companies reported larger profits. In other words, they raised prices more than food and energy costs went up, profiteering from the rising prices using price hikes blamed on higher costs to gouge consumers, widening margins.

The Iowa Corn Grower's reported, "Citing the (recent) decline in corn prices, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley has asked the Grocery Manufactures of America (GMA) when its members will reduce food prices and challenged GMA for continuing to make ethanol a scapegoat for high food prices. Congressman Collin Petersen, Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, has also called on GMA members to reduce prices and apologize to farmers for its anti-ethanol smear campaign. A GMA response maintained that ethanol production is the largest factor increasing corn prices."

Ethanol was a factor raising corn prices among many other factors. No one would argue with that. We would argue that the GMA members enjoyed the benefits of below the cost of production corn prices for many years, low prices sustained by government subsidies and like spoiled children losing a privilege, reacted like cry babies when the price of corn became profitable to farmers like that was something unfair.

The price of corn is now back down below the cost of production again, so the GMA can stop shedding those crocodile tears. With the profit they have been making, they can afford silk handkerchiefs. Sen. Chuck Grassley challenged the GMA directly on what he called a smear campaign, distorting the impact of corn prices and ethanol on food prices. In a letter to the GMA, Grassley wrote, "Since the smear campaign was launched last spring, I've been calling for intellectual honesty regarding ethanol and its role in the economy. Recent changes in the market confirm that many factors contributed to higher food prices during the last year. Yet as recently as October 6, 2008, Scott Faber of your organization was quoted by the Desert News as saying, 'The food manufacturers are high-volume, low margin companies that have initially absorbed a lot of the costs of higher commodities prices.'"

Food companies used higher corn prices as cover to gouge consumers with large price hikes. They now have the luxury of seeing raw food prices fall so they can trail food product prices lower while maintaining fat margins. These guys are very good liars who got where they are at by knowing how to game the system.

Senator Grassley added "In fact, when oil prices and commodity prices rose earlier this year, food processors and grocery stores reflected their higher input costs almost immediately, passing them onto consumer's. However, since commodity prices have declined over the past three months, we have seen retail food prices continue to rise."

While there were other factors than the impact that ethanol had on corn prices and many factors more powerful as to why corn prices went up than ethanol, the GMA focused on ethanol as the cause of food prices rising. That's a gross distortion of facts and so irresponsible the ethanol industry was compelled, like Senator Grassley, to respond.

The ethanol industry and other ag groups formed a coalition called Growth Energy to launch an ad campaign challenging the GMA's claim that ethanol raising corn prices, pushed them hard to raise food prices.

It's becoming the battle of ad agencies as, "The Glover Park Group, the Washington consulting firm that has been managing the anti-ethanol campaign for GMA and other organizations, called Growth Energy a splinter group, that seeks to perpetuate the myth that rising food prices are a result of a food company conspiracy. According to an October 31st story in the Wall Street Journal, Kraft's revenue increased 19 percent from the year-earlier period. Kraft's net income for the third quarter was $1.4 billion - or 93 cents a share - up from $596 million, or 38 cents, a year earlier."

Like Kraft Foods, Heinz blasted ethanol and corn prices for raising food costs and then boosted its prices enough to increase its profits 22% last quarter, netting $276.7 million. Doesn't that say it all? Food company's profits inflated dramatically, despite the higher corn costs so they have a lot of cash available to be able to afford anti-ethanol campaigns to cover their tracks.
They tell everybody how they have to raise food prices because of ethanol, but look at their profits soar.

**********


Now, I have argued before that I would much rather see corn used to produce food. But, with the increased efficiency of the ethanol industry and the growing use of the by-products left from ethanol production, (Dried Distillers Grains) it is a fact of life that corn is going to be used to produce some of our energy needs in the future. The current spot market price for ethanol is $1.39 per gallon. If I read the chart right, Reformulated Gasoline is .90 cents. Of course thats before the government takes their cut in the form of taxes.

The result of the sagging economy, falling commodity prices and market uncertainty makes for interesting days in the ag world. Land prices had been on a decade long climb with record prices recorded in the last 10 months. Now corn and bean prices are such that land purchases will no longer cash flow using current land prices. There have been several "no sales" of land at auction in the last month. Land owners saw record high prices and wanted to sell, farmers were in the mood to buy when corn was over $7.00 dollars a bushel, now corn prices are below cost of production, and they can not afford to pay record high prices for land.

And a related matter, ethanol company declares bankruptcy

One of the most irritating things about this Verasun fiasco is the fact that the bankruptcy court may allow Verasun to renege on all of the contracts that they wrote which are no longer profitable for them. In other words, some farmers sold corn to Verasun at $7.00 dollars per bushel, a tremendous profit for the farmer. Now with corn back below $4.00 dollars per bushel those farmers have contracts to deliver grain to Verasun, but Verasun does not have to pay the $7.00 dollars per bushel. However Verasun will honor the contracts written two years ago in which farmer contracted corn at $3.00 per bushel. That will sure cure your financial ills in a hurry, if you can pick and choose to honor only those contracts which will help your bottom line.

Want to buy into the ethanol business at rock bottom prices, there are numerous ethanol plants for sale at fire sale prices? There is also a brand new never been used bio-diesel plant for sale, built with farmer money, which is currently on the market, and now soybean prices are back to levels where bio-diesel production is again profitable.


In other news the cow herd continues to shrink,

see this article, shrinking cattle profits , so a smart guy, in a normal economy, would be buying cows and feeding cattle.

But, the vegans are out to stop that as well,

From the AP wire,

Proposed fee on smelly cows, hogs angers farmers


By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Bob Johnson, Associated Press Writer – Fri Dec 5, 4:43 am ET
These Montgomery, Ala., cows seem unaware of a proposal Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008 AP – These Montgomery, Ala., cows seem unaware of a proposal Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008 by the Environmental …

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.

Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which is one of several put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution.

"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal.

It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.

"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.

EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield said the fee was proposed for farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.

Butterfield said the EPA has not taken a position on any of the proposals. But farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the idea, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week.

"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.

"It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

"We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.

"Who comes up with this kind of stuff?" said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation's beef division. "It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business."

Butterfield said the EPA is reviewing the public comments and didn't have a timetable for the next steps.


In summary, production agriculture faces interesting times ahead. What is it about me that wants so badly to be in the game when everything looks so unsettled? It must be something in my blood.

One World Government on it's Way??

So the solution to the current economic crisis is to create a one world financial system?





How about instead we return to the Constitution,


Section 8

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall........... emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;



and the Biblical standard of "just weights and measures"?

Leviticus 19:36

36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Proverbs 20:10
Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.


I copied this directly from,

The Inflation Calculator

What cost $1.00 in 1936 would cost $14.81 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1936,
they would cost you $1.00 and $0.07 respectively.


If you think the dollar is a just weight and measure, think again.

Post Election Comments

Well, the man I voted for did not win. But, this now makes 16 years since I voted for a Repugnant party candidate for President. Until the Repugnant party nominates candidates who are truly pro-life, pro-marriage (between one man and one woman), who believe in sound money, a strong national defense, (not some globalist empire building un-ending war), protect the Constitution as the foundational law of the country, and start the process of defunding the unConstitutional agencies and departments which consume our nations resources, as well as burning down and salting the earth where the public school system stands

Children of the State

..... I will not be voting for them any time in the future.

So I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

To those of you who voted for Mc-Mark-O-Cain, I wonder, would your conscience have bothered you less if you had actually voted on principle, for a man with truly conservative/Constitutional positions rather than a RINO who acts and talks so much like a Demoncrat that most of the time he's siding with them?? Praise God the Mc-Mark-O-Cain lost. You sheep would have gone along with Mc-Mark-O-Cain's crazy socialist/leftist ideas just like you did with Jorge the Younger Shrub.

And maybe that is the most important thing I have to say this evening, until all of you out there on the web reading these comments, come to grip with this truth, you will continue to me defeated at the ballot box. Jorge the Younger Shrub ,was never a conservative.

Go to the transcript of this debate, February 15th, 2000 There was one and only one conservative sitting at that debate table and it wasn't Larry King. In the last 3 Presidential elections those of you who claim to be conservative, who claim to believe in small government and Constitutional freedoms voted for the other two men at the table, the ones who were not and are not now conservative.

How's that working for ya??

Until those conservative/Christians who claim to love God, this country and the Constitution which establishes the laws of this country vote for men who love God, this country and the Constitution, you will get spineless, liberal, appeasing men like Jorge the Younger Shrub. A man who claims the name of Christ, yet believes that he worships the same god as the Muslims do.

Can a Christian pray to Allah.

See when you vote for men who claim the name of Christ yet, say things like this, you are guilty of adding and abetting an infidel.

Before you consider voting in the next presidential election I would suggest you actually study and read the things what ever candidate you support believes and stands for, and if he says he supports the Constitution, yet advocates federal involvement in education, call him the liar that he is, since the Constitution never mentions education. And if he says he will support overt attacks on the Constitution like Mc-Mark-O-Cain/Feingold, call him a traitor to the Constitution like he is, in Constitutional language it would be "enemies foreign and domestic".

So my postmortem autopsy concludes that the election of Barak Hussein Obama is the direct fault of those of you who voted to put in power for the last 8 years a man who failed to support, defend and enact the conservative agenda. You elected a man who claimed the name of Christ and yet repeatedly acted in ways contrary to Biblical and Constitutional principles.


As to the future, "May God have mercy on our souls!"

Oh, and to you complete ignoramuses talking about running Jeb Bush in 2012, will you quite trying to lose elections and destroy this country? Do you really expect him to be any better than his worthless father or incompetent brother?




Update: Seems I'm not the only one who thinks that much of the blame for an Obama win lies at the feet of pseudo conservatives like George W. Bush and John McCain.


Conservatives Lost More Than An Election

A Conversation/Debate Tom(Bahama)Harkin and Christopher Reed

A tough young ex-Navy man, who runs his own business here in Iowa, decided to take on the Iowa Demoncrats biggest dog. And from what I see in this (debate) is he took a stick to the big dog and gave him a beating.

If you have spare change, send Mr. Reed a few dollars so that he can send Tom home to the Bahamas.

see the video here

IPTV

you can go to Mr. Reed's website,

here

Sarah Palin Photos

This is not an endorsement of the Palin/McCrazy campaign, and no I still will not be voting for them. A friend, who was at a Palin appearance in the last few days took these pictures. Since I'm not adverse to posting pictures of an attractive woman, and a Christian to boot, I offered to post them for him. So here they are, thanks Ted.














To bad he can't post them on the website he works for, but McCain/Feingold killed that.

A Third Party Vote and a Sovereign God

Our church decided to do something different than normal for Sunday School this quarter. Normally we have the different classes use material chosen for that specific class. I teach the Jr. High/Sr. High Class, we had been doing lessons I had prepared on Doctrine/Apologetics. The ladies were doing something about women of the Bible and the other adult class, mostly men were in something to do with the Judges. This quarter, all the classes are still meeting separately, but all of them are doing the same book and lessons.

Since this is not an advertisement or endorsement of that particular book/lesson, I'm simply going to say that the topic is related to the Sovereignty of God. If you want to know about the book ask and I'll give you the title and author, but for the purposes of this post, that info is irrelevant.

With the presidential election one month away, we are again hearing the usual arguments about how a follower of Jesus Christ should vote this election cycle. The following opinions are mine, you get what you paid for. But, there are several conclusions/assumptions that are givens in the following analysis. First, I will never ever vote for a candidate who supports the pro-abortion positions. I believe that man kind is created in the image of the Creator God, that all human life is therefore precious in His sight, and that someone who does not respect the right to life is worthy of God's wrath. Therefore I can not in good conscience support such a person. Second, I believe that the lesser of two evils, is still evil. I will not support a candidate simply because he is not as bad as his opposition. In a choice between Hitler and Mussolini, evil wins either way, therefore I will not support or vote for either of the two.

Using those principles then as a starting place, I can not in good conscience support either Barak Hussein Obama or John McCain. While many of you understand and agree with my position on BHO, you still are considering or maybe actively supporting McCain. I have previously established my strong dislike for McCain, here, so I will not repeat the litany of faults I contend deem him unworthy of my support. I will mention however that the economic chaos of the last 14? days has increased my contempt for the man, he is a socialist thru and thru. In crisis his immediate reaction is for government to do something/anything to fix the problem, and he will gladly steal the taxpayers money to do it.

Since Obama has voted in favor of infanticide, see this article by Andrew McCarty, also one by Jill Stanek and he considers a baby to be punishment, Punished with a Baby I have absolutely no use for BHO.

Consequently, my choices are limited. I can refuse to vote, something more and more people are doing. According to this article52 percent of "evangelicals" did not vote in the 2000 elections. I could also write in a candidate, something that is legal in all fifty states, I think. Our I could vote for a third party candidate.

And immediately people with an interest in seeing one of the two major party candidates begin to toss around the term "throwing away your vote". They claim that a vote for C candidate is a vote for B candidate, if they are a fan of A. And if they are a fan of B candidate they will claim that a vote for C candidate is a vote for A candidate. Now I ain't no genisus:). But a vote for C candidate is clearly a vote for C candidate, A and B can take a flying leap. And herein lies the greatest problem facing those who hold a worldview similar to the one that I hold. Far to many of them have believed the lie, that they must support A or B because the other candidate is evil, and that a third party can not win.

Some numbers for you to consider. I got these in just a few minutes of searching the internet. I'll give the sources, you can make your own case for their reliability. I simply took the numbers I found and did a few calculations.

According to numerous polls, some where between 70 and 80 percent of the US population claim some form of Christianity. See this page for details. Now lets narrow that down a little bit. According to this article, Publiceye "the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003." So I think it is well within the realm of possibility that just over 100 million American voters would identify themselves as being within the group of people who hold a biblical/christian worldview.

In 2000 George W Bush received 50,456,002 votes in the general election and Al Gore received 50,999,897 votes. and as I stated previously, according to Publiceye 52 percent of that 100 million Evangelicals did not vote. Now, according to the same article, somewhere between 37 and 40 percent of the total votes cast for George W Bush were cast by Evangelical Christians. Using the 40 percent figure for ease of calculation, we are talking about 20,182,401 votes cast by Evangelical Christians for GWB. Using the same source of info, about 11 percent of Evangelical Christians voted for the Democrat candidate or 6,493,128 votes.

Here's the deal. If the group that calls itself Evangelical/Born-Again Christians, would as a group vote what they claim to believe, here are the resultant numbers. In 2000, GWB would have received 30,273,601 votes. Algore would have had 44,506,769 votes. And a candidate supported by that coalition of Evangelical/Born-Again Christians would have received 26,675,529 votes.

So according to my friends who continue to believe the lie, that we must support A or B because C can't win, Algore would have won the 2000 election. And they believed a lie. Because as I said previously 52 percent of so called Evangelical Christians Did not Vote in 2000. If you could convince 50 percent of those people 52,000,000 "christians" to vote their conscience, thats 26,000,000 "christians who did not support either A or B, you would have the potential for a vote total on the order of 52,675,529 with the up side potential of 78,675,529.

And here in lies the problem. Without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, too many of you have accepted the lie that a third party candidate can not win. You therefore give your support/vote to the lesser of the two evils while at the same time making it impossible for men of much higher moral standards and character to win office, because you are in effect voting to stop evil by accepting evil. And in so doing you reject the Sovereignty of God.

If God is Sovereign, and I believe He is. Then when you vote for evil, in an attempt to prevent evil, you are saying that God is not capable of preventing evil from assuming a position of power. This is totally contrary to God's revealed Word. Here is one of my favorite passages, which we studied in Sunday School last Sunday.

Daniel 4:17 "to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
Again in verse 32 "until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
Then Nebuchadnezzar's own testimony, " 34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase."

Not convinced, how about Romans 13:1" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

So here's my plan. I will vote my conscience. I will vote for a man who has evidence in His life that He has a proper understanding of government, the He understands his position is one given by God, that he is accountable to God and that secular government is something God ordained to rule among the affairs of men. I will vote for a man who believes that human life is created in the image of God, and is therefore worthy of our protection from the womb to the tomb. And I will not vote for someone simply because I think he is less evil than the other guy. I will trust the Sovereign God of the Universe to "rule in the kingdom of men", and assume that he knows far better than I in my finite little mind who should be the leader of this country. And if enough of you will do the same, my God is fully capable of putting into office C even when A and B are claiming that voting for C is a wasted vote.

Now it's possible that you have read all this and are not convinced. Fine, but I have one question for you. When you stand before the Lord someday, and you are asked why you voted the way you did, and you will be asked, we all must give account, I Corinthians 3 and 4 say so, how are you going to explain to the Creator of the Universe, the Only Wise and Sovereign God, that you, in your finite wisdom, voted for an evil man to prevent an evil man from assuming power? Good luck with that!!


Post Script,

Any corrections of spelling and grammar would be deeply appreciated.

The Clue Phone is Ringing

For any of you out there in the ether, who still believe that we live in a country with even some semblance of what it was designed to be, should answer the clue phone.
This country was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. The elected leaders chosen by the citizens were to be bound by the Constitution to do only those things which it allowed.

For the last fifty years we have had much closer to a democratic social welfare state. Where the majority demand something and the elected leadership respond by handing out OPM (other peoples money). So if you wanted something real bad, you just had to get the majority to go along with you.

But today, we have now progressed into some sort of bastardized oligarchy

ol·i·gar·chy

1.
1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.


Read this from WIRED,

An aide in the office of Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday that the senator has received more than 91,000 e-mails, calls and letters regarding the legislation. Ninety-four percent of the authors of those notes were against the bill.

On the right, FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit, created the NoWallStreetBailout.com website, and has collected 41,415 names and statements from people who oppose it.

Widespread anger and opposition to the Senate's imminent approval of the Bush Administration's bailout proposal continued to spread online and overwhelm congressional offices in a flood of e-mails, faxes and phone calls on Wednesday.


And what did they do, were they bound by the Constitution?

Did they respond to the majority of the people?

No. They voted by a margin of 74 -25 to do what they want. Your opinion and the Constitution are completely ignored.

And for those of you still under the illusion that Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain is somehow more conservative and different than BarelyBlack Hussein Obamba, well guess what, they both voted for the thing. Now there's a real conservative for ya. A man of principle, a man willing to take the hard position, a maverick, just like Barry Boy.

Update, And just a personal note to Senator Grassley, "Dude, you failed to pass the conservative/constitutional test, I will never vote for you again. As far as I'm concerned the Repugnant Party better start looking for your replacement, cause I'll do everything I can to see you lose."

Sarah Palin

I have for the most part avoided commenting on Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain's choice for the office of Vice-President. There are several reasons for this enforced silence, and it's now time to elaborate.

First, I thought that Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain's choice of Mrs. Palin was an astute political move. She represented so many things that he did/does not. By all accounts she is a born-again Christian, he on the other hand, spoke of Christians in the most derogatory terms in 1999/2000, he clearly has issues with Christians.
She was very pro-life, to the point of having a Down's syndrome baby, instead of choosing to abort. Mc-Mark-O'Cain is pro-life the way most politicians are, only when it's time to run for office. He is for embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life, so while he may claim to be pro-life, he is inconsistent at best.

I've read that she was anti illegal immigration, while old Juan is an open borders zealot. She is a life-time member of the NRA. Mc-Mark-O'Cain gets a F- rating from the Gun Owners of America, and was considered persona non grata by the NRA until about 9 months ago. Mc-Mark-O'Cain has worked with George Soros funded gun-grabbers trying to close down gun shows, and other enfringements on the Second Amendment.

And Mrs. Palin is extremely attractive. Mc-Mark-O'Cain is Bob Dole with a better looking wife. An (no offense to those of you who are older than Juan) old geezer with a bad comb over. Even I would look good standing on a stage next to Sara Palin. Ok, that might be stretching it a little, but clearly Mrs. Palin is not hard to look at.

So as a political move adding Sara Palin to the ticket was a great idea. It was literally the only topic of conversation for almost two weeks. Her speech at the Repugnant Convention was more watched than his. People like James Dobson who had vowed never to vote for Mc-Mark-O'Cain changed their mind when Mrs. Palin became part of the ticket.

However, I do not, nor have I ever, voted on the basis of who is second on the ticket. If the Lord Jesus Christ Himself were second on the ticket to Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain, I would not vote for the ticket.

And therein lies my problems with Mrs. Palin. When she accepted the second spot on the ticket to a man who is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States. She became an accessory to his unlawfulness.

from Dictionary.com

accessory
Law.
a. Also called accessory before the fact. a person who, though not present during the commission of a felony, is guilty of having aided and abetted another, who committed the felony.

As I have written before, Vote for McCain, Never The man (along with Jorge the Younger Shrub) should be impeached.

Now Mrs. Palin has put herself in the position of having to defend the positions of a traitor to the Constitution. In fact she is now being forced by his people to answer questions about her beliefs with some codicil such as, "I personally believe" each time she has an opinion different than Juan.

I believe that Mrs. Palin is in the truest sense of the term, unequally yoked. II Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

If Mrs. Palin is really a follower of Jesus Christ. If she believes in absolute truth. If she is willing to defend her beliefs from a Biblical worldview. Then she has tied herself to a man who hold positions contrary to that worldview.

Now, I take no pleasure in pointing out Mrs. Palin's position, but let it serve as a warning to those tempted to compromise on their beliefs, (just a little bit) to gain access to power. She can and very likely will do harm to the cause of Jesus Christ, because of the position she now finds herself in. If she follows the party line, says what Juan wants her to say, she will be forced to
a. eat her own words from previous occasions,
b. advocate positions she personally finds to be unBiblical,
c. lie

any one of those scenarios will give the press a field day, especially if they catch her lying about her past positions to defend Mc-Mark-O'Cain's current ones.

Beside the fact that she must now play second fiddle to a man who is not trust worthy. She is also in a bind regarding the future. On Thursday night Mrs. Palin will debate Joe(the plagiarizer)Biden. Let me give you one example of the terrible position she finds herself in. What if Gwen Ifeld asks Mrs. Palin if she will support Juan's position on embryonic stem cell research? If she says yes, she will be immediately eviscerated by the right for failing to uphold the pro-life position. If she says no, she will be accused of being insubordinate to the man who gave her the position she holds. If she attempts to avoid the question she will be cast as indecisive and ignorant.

And maybe the most important question of the entire election cycle is going to destroy any future potential thoughts she has for elective office, regardless the out come of this falls election. Both Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain and the Lord Most High, BarelyBlack Obamba are in favor of the Wall Street bail-out. By some polls, 75 to 90 percent of the American public are opposed to the bail-out. Today, Mc-Mark-O'Cain excoriated Republicans who failed to vote for the bail-out. You can be guaranteed that Mrs. Palin will be asked if she favors the bail-out. From things she has said in the past, if Mrs. Palin is going to be consistent, she could not in clear conscience support this unConstitutional and clearly corporatist money grab. Will she follow Juan's commands to support the bail-out, thus disregarding the wishes of the vast majority of voters, or will she defy Juan, and portray herself as insubordinate?? Either way she becomes a has been as a political figure. The only way I see her saving her political future, is to resign the V.P. slot, telling the nation that she needs to spend her time with her family. Any other action will make her a pariah, in future years.

Why is this bail-out so toxic? Because just as campaign finance reform, and open borders, this thing is so clearly unConstitutional that even the mind numbed citizens recognize it. If Mrs. Palin supports it, she has just sold her soul to the devil. If she opposes it, Mc-Mark-O'Cain may very well have her thrown off the ticket. Not a pretty place to be, in my opinion.

I was asked a church the other day, what I thought of Mrs. Palin. I think she appears to be a lady I could like. A fellow follower of Jesus Christ. But, I believe she has made a horrible mistake by tying her political future to a traitorous, unprincipled man like Juan Mc-Mark-O'Cain.

May God grant her peace and wisdom. She's going to need it, in unbelievable amounts.

A busy weekend.

On Friday evening the farmer and his family were host to our area homeschool group. We had about 75 homeschool parents and children come here to the farm to cook some food on the grill, fellowship together and listen to the trucker tell his stories:).

Each of the families brought their own meat to cook on the grills I had waiting, and something to share with the group.

My children hid 4 cases of pop cans, each numbered on the bottom, around the acreage, then I sent the kids off to find them. As they returned with a found can of pop, it was marked off of the list, then thrown in a tub of ice water. When all the cans had been found, after about 45 minutes, everybody could drink a can if they wanted one. Not a single parent objected to the fact that their children were drinking soda at 8:00 oclock at night, rather, most of they were thankful for the peace and quiet while the children were running to and fro hunting for the sodas.

By the time all the cans were found, darkness had arrived, whereupon the children started a game of capture the flag. That lasted right up until the guests departed, so that we had most of an hour and a half of uninterrupted adult conversation without the crum crunchers hanging on mothers arm.

Our home is surrounded by a large corn field. So the one and only rule was repeated often and loudly.

DO NOT GO INTO THE CORNFIELD !!!

I did not want to be trying to console some distraught mother, because her child had wandered off into a corn field a mile long. Thankfully, everyone obeyed the rule, and there were no search parties required.

On Saturday we repeated the process, only this time it was our local church family as well as another local church of like faith and a few other guests that I had invited.

This is the 5th ? annual cookout with our church family. We do a couple of things differently at this event compared to the one with the homeschoolers. First, "the church that shoots together works together", so we set up a couple of clay pidgeon throwers and blasted some holes in the sky. This year the sheriff did not come to investigate the gunfire.



I was busy cooking, so I can't personally testify to the accuracy of this report, but I heard that this young lady was a very good shot, and did better than many of the men.


The other thing we did different, is that I bought the meat through my local meat vendor, 45 ribeyes and 60 lean hamburgers. US Certified Angus Beef Choice Grade I did the cooking on the grill, with some assistance from my younger brother and my pastor. My lovely wife baked up 80 some baked potatoes in electric roasters, then the guests each brought something to share as well. I'm sorry to say that I had to charge something for the meat since I'm not independently wealthy, and couldn't afford to give everyone a free meal. Lord willing someday I can do that.
There was a tremendous amount of food left over on Saturday night.

We again hid the pop cans, the kids now expect that game. And most of the older kids played volleyball in the back yard under a light I had set up. We have a trampoline, two swing sets, a (very cool) tire swing, set up the badminton net, as well as the volleyball net, had an old tractor wheel rim set up as a fire ring with a bonfire in it, so that there were numerous things for everyone to do.


Sunday we went to church, took the lovely Mrs. farmer to Pizza Hut for her birthday, and then we rested. Monday we took back all the picnic tables we had borrowed, enough to seat 120 people.

Thanks to everyone that came, thanks to those who loaded/loaned picnic tables, and the most thanks to my lovely wife, who puts up with my desire to be the host with the most.

The Rally for the Republic

On Tuesday I ventured away from my quiet, isolated, rural Iowa acreage, took the big road north, and waded into the teaming masses in the heart of downtown Minneapolis. It took all of five minutes to remember how much I despise the metropolitan environs. Why would any human being submit them selves to the torture of live in such a place? Noise, constant, irritating, ceaseless noise. Cars rumbling, people talking, sirens wailing, I had forgotten the noise. And the huge amount of lights, flashing signs, scrolling billboards, street lights, stop lights, rows and rows of office windows, with lights, large public buildings with lights attempting to show off their architecture paid for with stolen tax payer dollars. Lights everywhere. And the people, so many people, I saw more people last night in 4 hours than I see in my community in several years. People of every size, shape and color. People who look sad, people who look angry, people trying to attract other people, people trying to sell ideas, and some people actively trying to repel others by their actions and appearance.

So why did the farm boy go to the big city? To hear a speech. Last night, I had the privilege of hearing, Ron Paul speak at the Rally for the Republic. Last night I risked life and limb to refresh my love for the Constitution, to hear a man who loves life and liberty remind those assembled that we were given a great system of government, to quote Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

And last night was all about our desire to keep this nation a republic. To stop the unending growth of the federal leviathan. The massive social welfare state that we have become is the antithesis of a republic. I went to hear a man of integrity extol the superiority of a republic. And in reality it was mostly just refreshing to spend a little time with people of like mind. With people who do not want to get a hand out from the government but would rather slap the hand of government, and tell them to "get your stinking hands off of my life and property".

I saw several people I knew, people who believe in personal liberty and responsibility. There were numerous vendors pushing their ideas, financial products related to real currency and lots of organizations handing out samples of literature, political fliers and campaign information. I met a couple of brothers, libertarians, who run their own business, and want the government to leave them alone. They were circulating a petition to get Bob Barr on the ballot in Minnesota.

Ron Paul's speech was good. But, in the end, I was far more encouraged by the large number of people who came to defend the republic, to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The crowd of young and not so young Americans who believe that less government and more personal responsibility are the key to keeping the republic.

I hated my time in the city, but, it was worth it, because I came home with a renewed desire to defend the republic, and to keep telling my fellow citizens that our God givens rights to life and liberty are still loved and valued by numerous Americans, and that there are some of us who will continue to push our fellow citizens to return to the vision of our founders, and the republic which they gave us.

Something to Make You Laugh

Another busy month has come and gone, and I have posted nothing.

Last night I was looking for something on You Tube and thought of this old commercial. In the summer of 2002 I happened to be home on a Saturday afternoon when the Cardinals and Cubs were playing on the Saturday game of the Week. The game went extra innings, I think it was 13 innings, anyway the TV people must not have been prepared for extra innings, cause they ran this commercial every half inning from the 8th on. Something like 14 times they ran this commercial. I was laughing till I cried every half inning and the lovely Mrs. farmer was so sick of the thing she kept leaving the room after each half inning.

Now some of you know that I am not a user of alcohol in any form. This is not an endorsement of this product, nor am I suggesting that anyone try this product on the basis of this commercial. But, I'm thinking if you don't laugh, there is something seriously wrong with you. This is funny stuff.




One more that I saw on the web several years ago which made me laugh uproariously.




So there ya go, two things to make you laugh. And I've posted something.

Reposting this time with pictures.

This is an attempt to repost an earlier post with the pictures included this time. I'm home sick with a terrible sinus cold, and called the internet provider to complain about my slow service, suddenly it's much better. I don't know what happened, but now every thing works.

So on Father's Day evening, a quick summary in pictures of the last few weeks.

We got a new puppy for the kids. Yellow lab and mountain cur. Name is Buck.





Here is a shot of the lovely Mrs. farmer and Buck.





As you may have heard, we have been blessed with a great deal of water lately.
Here is a view of the local grocery store last Sunday evening. The water got up to the second shelf. Bags of softener salt apparently make inferior quality sandbags.


And yesterday I drove down to SW Iowa to my former stomping grounds and brought home my motorcycle. It's a 1981 Yamaha SECA 750. Needs some TlC. A new tail light, turn signal, throttle cable and a front tire.


I think this may actually work.

More later.

Letter To the Editor

I'm posting a complete copy of a letter I just sent in the last five minutes to the Des Moines Register. Since they habitually edit reader letters, and there is a very small chance that my comments will be posted anyway, I will post the letter here. Comment at will, I appreciate the feedback.



I have on more than one occasion sent a letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register related to the “right to keep and bear arms”. On one of those occasions I received a personal reply from Mr. Richard Doak in which he argued his wacky (albeit the standard liberal position) case that the Second Amendment was strictly limited to the militia and was not an individual right. So when Heller vs. DC was released this week, I made a special effort to see what the Register had to say about this decision.
Now if only a nobody like Justice Antonin Scalia were the only person in the history to argue that the Second Amendment was an individual right, then Mr. Doak and his ilk might have an argument. But when noted liberals like Laurance Tribe who called the Second Amendment "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." [Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902 (2000)] . And Alan Dershowitz stated “"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”. On the other hand the position that Mr. Doak takes is that championed by that noted Constitutional lawyer Rosie O'Donnell, who argued on her show on numerous occasions including one with Tom Selleck that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
So lets see, on one side we have Justice Antonin Scalia, four other member of the Supreme Court, Alan Dershowitz, Laurance Tribe and millions of American gun owners, on the other we have Mr. Richard Doak, Rosie O'Donnell and thousands of Constitutionally illiterate liberals, unable to read the clear meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. I quote from Justice Scalia's opinion, “

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”

in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble

(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the peo-

ple” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth

Amendment (providing that those powers not given the

Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the

people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”

acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or

reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the

Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer

to anything other than an individual right.6
”

So what is clear to millions of us, is unclear to a few, who would argue that the right to free speech is an individual right, then turn around in the next breath and argue that the Amendment following is not. Clearly the Register and Mr. Doak don't like the ruling in Heller vs DC. The question you need to ask yourself is, do I hate guns so much, that I would ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution to limit the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Mr. Doak and the Register answer the question in the affirmative.
One more thing, Mr. Doak's explanation that the State of Iowa does not have an equivalent to the Second Amendment is well, laughable. Sir, with all due respect, there are certain “self evident truths” which the writers of the Constitution both at the Federal level and here in Iowa assumed were so clear to the people that it was unnecessary to elaborate. I highly doubt that the founders could imagine a day when newspapers and other public institutions would attempt to describe the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” as anything other than an individual right. They were wrong of course, because we have not only sunk to the depths of attempting to pervert that right, we now have a culture which would attempt to equate the meaning of the word marriage with the deviant acts of the sexually confused. I've got to believe that if the writers of the Iowa Constitution thought that someday Iowans would be told that the “right to keep and bear arms” was anything other than an individual right they would have included something like the Second Amendment in the Iowa Constitution, and furthermore I think if they had even considered the possibility that the citizens of Iowa would be forced by a judge to accept as “a right” the ability of sodomites to get “married” they would have written into the Constitution wording making that idea impossible. Come to think of it, I think a majority of the citizens of Iowa would vote for such a Constitutional Amendment today.

Come on Down to the Farm

http://www.lewisandlewis.org/OnlineStore.html

A Much Better Post with Pictures

This is an attempt to repost an earlier post with the pictures included this time. I'm home sick with a terrible sinus cold, and called the internet provider to complain about my slow service, suddenly it's much better. I don't know what happened, but now every thing works.

So on Father's Day evening, a quick summary in pictures of the last few weeks.

We got a new puppy for the kids. Yellow lab and mountain cur. Name is Buck.





Here is a shot of the lovely Mrs. farmer and Buck.





As you may have heard, we have been blessed with a great deal of water lately.
Here is a view of the local grocery store last Sunday evening. The water got up to the second shelf. Bags of softener salt apparently make inferior quality sandbags.


And yesterday I drove down to SW Iowa to my former stomping grounds and brought home my motorcycle. It's a 1981 Yamaha SECA 750. Needs some TlC. A new tail light, turn signal, throttle cable and a front tire.


I think this may actually work.

More later.

A Debate

It sprinkled a little bit, the manure pit was empty and I've already put in 12 hours, so I have time to post something. I also completed replacing the head gasket and water pump on a car for a cousin of mine. He's a college student, short of funds, and the local shop wanted about $1500 dollars to fix it, I put about $410 dollars in parts, gaskets and had the head planed and a valve job done on it. They drove it away yesterday, hopefully it lasts him a while. So one of the projects that has been consuming my time is gone down the road. PTL

Today the Jan Mickelson Show on 1040 WHO Radio out of Des Moines IA, held a debate between Dr. Hector Avalos (an atheist) a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and Dr. Richard Weikart author of "From Darwin to Hitler : Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism".

You can download the podcast here, http://www.mickelson.libsyn.com/


I was amused with Avalos's argument, which amounts to little more than claiming that Hitler never actually mentioned Darwin, so therefore there is no connection between the two.

If you have read here before you should remember that Avalos was one of the principles responsible for denying Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez tenure at ISU. Both Gonzalez and Weikart appear in Expelled which I reviewed earlier.

BTW, If you have not seen Expelled yet, go do it now. It is worth your time and money.

Punished with a Baby

I have been very busy lately, very busy, and I am also having computer issues. So I have not been posting or even reading much which would give me topics to bring up here.

In a week or two I have some farming pictures, and I have several things of interest running through my head, but for the time being I simply don't have the time to post anything.

I did read this post over at Animate Matters the other day and asked Wes for permission to post it here. I've made in clear that I don't like John McMark-o-cain at all, but this does not mean I have latched onto the Magic Negro. This dude is evil personified. Wes did an excellent job of describing the depths of depravity that Barak Hussein represents. So thanks to Wes for letting me post his thoughts here, Well said Wes.






Brokeback Osama made this comment during a town hall meeting in Johnstown, PA on March 29, 2008. He was discussing the dangers of AIDS:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education – which should include abstinence education and teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.

“But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

That final line is one of the most vomitous statements I’ve heard gush from a politician’s mouth. It tells you everything you need to know about Osama’s moral center, which is a black hole (no pun intended).

The last I checked, be-bopping into the car’s backseat with your boyfriend so he can demonstrate the suspension’s springiness isn’t a “mistake.” “Hooking up” after the all-night kegger, while your parents think you’re sleeping over at Molly’s house isn’t an “oops” moment. The sexual act is just that—an act. And a conscious one, to boot. It requires forethought and effort. I’m so tired of the deconstruction of language. Deliberate acts are mistakes, and mistakes are intentional acts. Uh-huh. Babies don’t mysteriously fall out of the sky and land in teenage girls’ stomachs; there is no stork flapping overhead, waiting to bomb teen twits with screaming infants: I don’t care what mommy told you when you were five. Personal responsibility lies in the same grave as the T-rex and the dodo, it seems. A mistake is tripping over my own feet, as I make my way to the bathroom in the dark, in the middle of the night. Or mashing my thumb with a hammer as I drive a stake into Hillary’s cold, shriveled heart. Those are legitimate and unintentional errors. Getting it on after the prom because it’s the “in” thing to do extends somewhat beyond the category of “Yikes! Didn’t mean to do that!”

As for Osama’s perverse definition of punishment, babies are punishments in the same sense that strawberries are dire consequences for the vines from which they sprang. Is the logical outcome of your actions a punishment? Calling his statement asinine is unfair to asinine idiots everywhere. God isn’t sitting up in Heaven on a cloud, saying: “I smite thee, oh Betsy Jones, with a howling infant of your own.” That’s not how it works. Rather, God created a biological mechanism by which children are brought into this world. It’s called “procreation.” Look it up. I understand that the sex act isn’t just about producing children, but it’s inextricably intertwined with the pleasure aspects. If you don’t understand this simple, demonstrable fact, I have three words for you: keep it zipped. And pray that someday, someone will come along and help you with your rectal-cranium-insertion problem.

What Osama really means is this: “If my daughters reach puberty and do something stupid and irresponsible, I don’t think they should suffer the consequences of their actions—even if this means an innocent child loses his life. Instead, I think they should live in an artificial world that exists nowhere outside our house, where actions have no reactions, and causes have no effects.”

How’s that for family values?

Review of "Expelled"

I took my lovely bride and some friends and drove to Ames on Friday evening to see Expelled on its opening night.
The theater was packed, even some college students sitting on the floor in the aisle.
We thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There were several laugh out loud funny parts, old black and white comedy routines interspersed throughout numerous segments of serious discussion. PZ, Dawkins and others trying to tell how evil God was while attempting to also appear erudite, stuff-isticated, although they managed to come across as arrogant members of the species Equus asinus; male version refered to as Jack.

The theater was deathly silent as Ben Stein visited with the tour guide at Hadamar mental hospital talking about the scientists and medical personal even in the years before Hitler, Darwinists, who had already begun the process of gathering up the weak and disabled, the "useless eaters" to prevent them from being a hindrance to the superior, fitter members of society. Then walking through the chambers at Dachau and considering the thousands of people who died simply because one group of people believed they were superior to another group of people. Survival of the fittest, or something like that,

I thought the movie was well done. Even if you do not like the ID approach to worldviews, you will find that Stein and friends make an excellent case that freedom of speech is being limited for those who hold a view outside of the Darwinist/anti-god camp.

After the movie was over, Professor
Guillermo Gonzalez author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. spoke and answered several questions. Dr. Gonzalez was one of the professors in Expelled who lost his chance at tenure because he dared to mention ID in his book. He was personally targeted for refusal of tenure by the head of the Religious Studies department at Iowa State University Dr. Hector Avalos (an atheist).Dr. Gonzalez talked about what had been done to him and what he was doing in the future.

Afterward on the way out we were handed a propaganda sheet by some of Avalos's minions promoting a lecture by Avalos refuting the film.

All in all a good evening, topped off with BBQ ribs at Hickory Park, my favorite rib joint.

Well worth the time and effort of making the trip down to Ames.

BTW, I've said this before, but please get the Privileged Planet DVD or the book and see Dr. Gonzalez's work, it is outstanding.

Coming Soon, To A Theater Near You

I am really looking forward to this movie. I'm making it a priority to be there for opening day April 18th.

Another Day

As I have written before, I do not farm for myself. Some of my frustration in the last post was job related, we'll leave it at that. If you are the praying type, would you consider praying for me? My goal was to farm for myself. When the kids came along, 3 in eighteen months, and a couple of flood years, I had to take a job to put bread on the table.
Enough about that, pray for me.

I'm more than a little put out by the political scene as well. Here in Iowa the Demoncrats control the governorship as well as both houses. In the last few weeks, they have killed a state Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, tried to pass a collective bargaining agreement which would pretty much make any union employee of any kind eligible for third party arbitration for not just salary, but job requirements, class room size, insurance package, retirement, even staffing levels. More here, The Taxpayers get Screwed

On the national scene, The Lizard Queen and Barack the Magic Negro seem to be doing an excellent job of tearing each other apart. With the help of the media, Hillary is once again proved to be a bald faced liar in relation to the "sniper" incident. With the Rev. Wright situation, even the liberal whites are mildly concerned about Barack's racist tendencies. All the while McMark-o-Cain sounds more and more liberal and less and less rational.

So, I've been thinking about it and I have a question, is it unBiblical for believers in Jesus Christ, worshipers of the God of Abram, Isaac and Jacob to pray that McMark-o-Cain would suddenly assume room temperature prior to his receiving the nomination? If we believe that the God of Heaven is actively involved in the affairs of men,
Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. This is repeated in verses 25, 32, and 5:21. In the middle of that passage are these verses.

34And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

36At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.

37Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

If the God of the Universe controls who ruleth over men, is it not within His power to remove from positions of authority men who would deny Him or would act in ways contrary to God's revealed will? Since John McMark-o-Cain has not been and is not now a man of Godly character, having opportunity to elect someone else would be a good thing. That is possible only if McMark-o-Cain is no longer in a position to receive the nomination. So should we pray for his demise?

Read this article by someone strongly opposed to McMark-o-Cain.

8 reasons I won't vote for John McCain

There is another option though, The Constitution Party. Sounds like Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, and Chuck Baldwin are mentioned as possible nominees.

Resurrection Sunday

Today is a day filled with hope. Our eternal life is dependent on a Risen Savior. What was it Paul said?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.


And I believe that Christ rose again.



But for some reason today I'm feeling, well, in a funk. Seems like none of the things I would like to be doing are happening, finances are a continuing struggle, and I'm not looking forward to a new week of the same old, same old.

Sorry for the whining, I really don't have anything important to say, and if I talked about some of the garbage that is going on in our state politics/government, I'd probably get angry, so I think I'll avoid that as well.

So that's it. I got nothing and I'm not particularly in a good mood either.

Later.

Your comments on this?

From The Sunday Times (London)
March 16, 2008
Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor

Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.

MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, a move not backed by the government. A Sunday Times poll today shows 59% of women would support such a reduction, with only 28% backing the status quo. Taken together, just under half (48%) of men and women want a reduction to 20 weeks, while 35% want to retain 24 weeks.

Some MPs also want women to have a “cooling off” period in which they would be made aware of the possible consequences of the abortion, including the impact on their mental health, before they could go ahead.
Related Links

* An embryonic disaster?

More than 90% of the 200,000 terminations in Britain every year are believed to be carried out because doctors believe that continuing with the pregnancy would cause greater mental strain.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. “Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information,” it says.

Several studies, including research published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2006, concluded that abortion in young women might be associated with risks of mental health problems.

The controversy intensified earlier this year when an inquest in Cornwall heard that a talented artist hanged herself because she was overcome with grief after aborting her twins. Emma Beck, 30, left a note saying: “Living is hell for me. I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum. I want to be with my babies; they need me, no one else does.”

The college’s revised stance was welcomed by Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP campaigning for a statutory cooling-off period: “For doctors to process a woman’s request for an abortion without providing the support, information and help women need at this time of crisis I regard almost as a form of abuse,” she said.

Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, will this week appeal to MPs to ignore attempts to reduce the time limit on abortion when new laws on fertility treatment and embryo research come before parliament.

Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: “How can a doctor now justify an abortion [on mental health grounds] if psychiatrists are questioning whether there is any clear evidence that continuing with the pregnancy leads to mental health problems.”

How do you really feel??

Part of my wages each year is 2 hogs and a beef. We are talking USDA certified Grade A Black Angus corn-feed prime beef. The kind of beef that you would pay $35 or $40 dollars for at quality steakhouse. Well marbled, tender, succulent beef.

The steer is taken to a local locker to be processed, hangs in the cooler for about 10 to 15 days, and then cut, wrapped and packaged. Last week we got our 1/2 of a beef from the locker. We usually get a half a beef at a time cause we don't have freezer space for 800 to 900 lbs of frozen beef.

Now the locker where this is done is a private business which serves a local clientèle. Most of the animals he processes are directly off of the farm, done for the family that raised the animal. Sometimes he will process meat which a customer buys from the farmer. In any case, he works with quality meat, for customers who want the very best.

Be patient, I'm getting there.

Iowa is known for having some large deer, as well as a very large deer population. The first weekend in December often sounds like rural Iowa is a war zone with all the gunfire in the distance. If you don't hunt deer you're considered to be some sort of freak. A lazy worthless, good for nothing couch potato, who fails his civic duty to help lower the suicidal quadruped population. When the act of hunting has become a sporting event in which the goal is not really to kill something and eat it, rather to kill something and stop the long legged varmits from reproducing. What one does with the animal after successfully ventilating said animals hide, is a secondary question in many peoples thinking.

Their actions follow along this general train of thought. Kill Bambi = good. Less car accidents, less danger to mankind, fun activity to do only a Saturday, and also an excuse to get very drunk. Only after Bambi has assumed room temperature does the typical hunter consider what to do with the carcass. Some literally leave the animal lay in the woods, these are the type that consider anything that moves to be a fair target, and would never make the effort to do anything other than pull the trigger.

The second group like to eat venison, consider the opportunity to hunt, a way to put cheap meat on the table, and I might add would eat kangaroo and anything else that moves, if given the opportunity. These hearty types generally process the deer themselves, because as well as eating something like venison, they are also a little on the penny pincher side, in other words, their cheap. They would eat bad tasting venison even when they could go to the locker and buy some home raised beef, cause it's cheap.

The third group is where we get to the crux of the matter. Often times the third type, shoot the Bambi, then have a discussion with themselves about what to do with the thing. "Dude, I don't what to cut it up, you do it". Or "lets take it to the local locker and have a professional cut it up". So I have seen literally hundreds of deer carcasses piled up outside the locker.

The owner of our local locker does not appreciate this kind of customer. First they often really don't want the meat anyway, so they wind up giving the a meat to charity or some such thing. Second they sometimes do not pay the bill for processing Bambi. Leaving the locker owner with a pile of meat he can not sell. It is illegal to sell venison harvested in open season. And he used his valuable time cutting up Bambi instead of focusing on the normal customers who would not consider venison worth the time to eat, they want corn fed beef.

So in honor of his disdain for the deer hunter population, and the Bambi they bring to his shop to be processed, the local locker owner has placed in a prominent place, just inside the front door, this visual devise to show his contempt for Bambi.



Insert your own caption here.