Barack Hussein Obama, "The Audacity of Hope, and Steven Phillip Kazmierczak

UPDATE:

Maybe Kazmierczak was putting his hope in the 72 virgins theory. Sounds to me like he was getting a little help from some less than friendly jihads'.

from Debbie Schlussel


For those who have never been here before, don't blame me, I read the idea here.

Mary Mitchell

Now I have a few thoughts on the subject as well, but I'm confident that my take on the subject is much different than Ms. Mitchell's.

First a little about Barack and Hope

Much has been said and written in the last few weeks about Barack Obama's appeal to the voters in the election cycle. He wrote a book last year entitled "The Audacity of Hope" in which he suggests that Americans need to again have hope in the future, believe that change can come, that a spirit of optimism is essential to the American dream. Some on the right would suggest that Mr. Obama's fervored speeches are little more than empty pablum filled rhetoric. I'll leave that for the reader to decide. I want to concentrate on hope.

American Heritage Dictionary
hope (hōp)
v. hoped, hop·ing, hopes

v. intr.

1. To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
2. Archaic To have confidence; trust.


v. tr.

1. To look forward to with confidence or expectation: We hope that our children will be successful.
2. To expect and desire. See Synonyms at expect.


n.

1. A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment.
2. Something that is hoped for or desired: Success is our hope.
3. One that is a source of or reason for hope: the team's only hope for victory.
4. often Hope Christianity The theological virtue defined as the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible to attain with God's help.

Since I have not read Mr. Obama's book, we will assume here that he uses the term hope in either the verb or noun form, most likely definition #1 in each, and most likely uses both. So hope is a wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of it fulfillment or a wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment. In the speeches by Mr. Obama which I have heard he refers to hope, that we can end the war, suffering, and a long list of other things, "if only we have the audacity to hope".

Now hope can be a good thing, I hope my children grow up to be responsible, God fearing adults, who want to live in a manner pleasing to Jesus Christ, and that they have a personal relationship with Christ which is sincere, fruitful and eternal. I can hope those things. But if I never do anything more than hope, well, it's highly doubtful that this hope will be realized, why, because in my world, hope requires action on my part. I can hope to win the lottery, but since I believe that games of chance are not something that God would have me be involved in, I never buy a lottery ticket, my hope is useless, because you have to play to win, right?

And according to Ms. Mitchell our culture is suffering from the "The pain of hopelessness".
And the question is why? Is it because we lack in material goods? Is it because we lack a political system that "cares" about us? Is it because we have crime and poverty and violence on our streets and in our homes?

Or is it because we have lost the true meaning of hope, and/or we confuse success in life with things which are in reality things which lead to hopelessness? We'll come back to this in a moment.

Lets think about Mr. Kazmierczak for a moment. What would lead a young man, an intelligent, well educated, well liked,he even had a girlfriend, to kill 5 other humans and then shoot himself? Doing some searching about Mr. Kazmierczak on the internet, one soon finds some disturbing things.

Mr. Kazmierczak

and from his girlfriend


if you read through all that, here's a short list,

he was confined to an asylum after he started cutting himself,
he was taking psychotropic drugs to control his "schizophrenia",
who joined the army in 2001 but had to be discharged soon after for psychological reasons,
got a job in a prison but suddenly stopped going to work.
his mother died two years ago,
He was a co-author of an academic paper called “Self-Injury in Correctional Settings: ‘Pathology’ of Prisons or of Prisoners?” which examined why inmates might hurt themselves with behaviors like cutting their skin.
he had begun to get tattoos which included "- and he had disturbing tattoos inked on to his arms; one of a character from the horror movie Saw, one of a skull with a dagger through it and one of a satanic pentagram."
and one of the last things he sent to his girlfriend was "a paperback edition of 19th Century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ," a book he had been reading recently, according to sources."

So in summary, Ms. Mitchell was right, "We are living at a time when depression seems to be as common as a cold or flu. Yet what is depression but an impenetrable cloud of hopelessness?"

Here was a young man without hope. But not the hope which Barack Obama is pushing. Because this young man was a part of the the culture of hope. His plan was to help those in the criminal-justice system. He was concerned about his fellow man. He was a good person. He had every reason to hope, right?

All this leads to something which the media, the culture and even the church has failed to tell people. Hope in not found in politics, hope is not found in a college education, hope is not found in popularity or fame. From the definitions above,
"4. often Hope Christianity The theological virtue defined as the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible to attain with God's help."

Hope, real genuine hope is found in Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Romans 15:13
Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Galatians 5:5
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Colossians 1:5
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

1 Thessalonians 2:19
For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

1 Thessalonians 5:8
But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Hebrews 6:18
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us
Hebrews 6:19
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

1 Peter 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

I think you'll are smart enough to get the point. The hope that Barack is selling and the hope that Steven Kazmierczak could not find are both false hope, empty hope. True hope is found in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the Cross of Calvary. Through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ we have the hope of forgiveness of sins in this life, and the hope of life eternal. Real hope.

Do you have that hope?

Vote for McCain? Never!

Just participated in a poll on whether I would vote for John McCain.

BTW, I highly recommend the Andrew Napolitano speech on YouTube linked below.


I never voted for George W. Bush, I didn't buy his "compassionate conservatism". I will not under any circumstances vote for John McCain. He is far more liberal than Bush on almost all issues.

Start with the Constitution.

First Amendment, McCain/Feingold was one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in the last 20 years. In any other universe than this one, a member of Congress who writes a law, in fact champions to this day a law, which attempted to supersede the words, "Congress shall make no law" , would be impeached. Period, end of story. The man is an enemy of the Constitution.

Second Amendment, John McCain along with Joe Lieberman introduced a bill, S.890, in 2001, which would have outlawed the private sale of firearms and strictly limited the ability of gun owners to buy guns and gun accessories at gun shows. He receives an F- rating from Gun Owners of America.

Fourth Amendment, John McCain voted for the Patriot Act. See this YouTube speech by Andrew Napolitano. This is a fascinating lecture on the erosion of our civil liberties. If you are really interested you should find all 4 parts of the lecture. This is just part of the lecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SU0zuUzrSg

Fifth Amendment, John McCain is not pro-life, read this statement from August "1999, which he repeated on more than one occasion as recorded by a liberal web-magazine, Slate. He would allow abortion to continue unchecked, I quote, "I'd love to see a point where Roe v. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." John McCain is in favor of depriving the right to life from the unborn by never repealing Roe vs. Wade.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139775/

Fourteenth Amendment, John McCain does not understanding the meaning of the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so he considers all babies born on US soil to be citizens even though that is directly opposed to what the author of the original wording of the 14th Amendment had to say about it. Quote Jacob Howard "Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power, which in return allows the United States to exercise full and complete jurisdiction over the person." and Senator Lyman Trumbull quote "“It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…" birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is a direct violation of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and John McCain supports birthright citizenship.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/re...risdiction.html

Sixteenth Amendment, John McCain does not understand that the "first fruits" of a mans labor do not belong to the government but to the person who earned the money. One can make a Biblical case that God is entitled to the "first fruits" but never is the government entitled to them. Senator McCain does not support the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which is an immoral taking of the property of the private citizen.

http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

Senator McCain has stated in previous campaigns that he has no personal problem with women in the military. I personally find that indefensible.
He has also stated that he would not support a return to the former policy of excluding all homosexuals from the military.

He does not support giving the oil companies the freedom to drill where ever it is economically viable including ANWAR , and off the western and southeastern coasts. Therefore he would rather fight a war in the middle east than pump our own oil here at home.

John (Al Gore) McCain is a supporter of the global warming hoax.

John McCain says that he would keep troops stationed in Iraq for 100 years. How many generations is that? Your children"s grandchildren will still be there?

I could go on. It won't do any good. Too many of you are lacking in principle. You claim to love this nation and the freedoms we enjoy. You claim that our rights come for God. Yet you do not have the backbone to stand in opposition to a man like John McCain who would willfully, with malice and forethought, deprive you and your fellow citizens of those same God given rights.

Freedom is not free. Are you willing to pay the price?

Book Review of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

Sometime in the fall of 2003 I came across the opinion column written by Vox Day on World Net Daily. The article, which sticks in my memory, was about a personal friend. This friend was an artist, a real free spirit and also a self-professed atheist. For what ever reason this young lady came to a point where she chose to carry the atheistic worldview to it's ultimate conclusion, to control even life itself, by ending her own life.
This nihilistic, Godless, self-aggrandizing worldview, this rejection of a world with rules, standards and consequences to the same, is currently being championed by a group of authors Vox has dubbed the Unholy Trinity. The Irrational Atheist is a full frontal assault on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, schills for the ungod.
I have a friend who works in the CBM gas fields of NE Wyoming. On occasion he encounters rattlesnakes. Now he doesn't hate snakes, he believes in live and let live. But, when a deadly poisonous snake sticks up its diamond shaped head, rattles it tail and threatens to strike, ignoring the danger has deadly results. My friend has a solution to the problem. He takes a trusty shovel and proceeds to make the situation less threating for himself, very deadly for the snake.
The Irrational Atheist is killing snakes with a shovel. The UnHoly Trinity stick their heads up, rattle their tail, and flick their bifurcated tongues, and Vox Day takes a shovel to them. This book is a beat down of ideologies, theories and rationalities which hold dangerous consequences to mankind. Vox shows in various ways that the attempt to take away religious belief, a faith in a divine being, leads to totalitarian slaughter in an attempt to enforce a Godless culture. Whether it's the current regime in N. Korea, the bloody hands of Mao-Tse-Tung, or the mass killing by the nation celebrating The Union of the Militant Godless, mankind is in danger when its people believe that “there is no God to whom he must ultimately answer for his deeds”.
I have read several works of Christian apologetics, The Case for Christ by Lee Stobel, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Gisler, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and others. This book is nothing like those. This book is an attack on atheism/Godlessness using reason, logic and facts, the very things that the UnHoly Trinity claim to love. The results are not pretty. Harris in particular, but all three are made to appear as ignorant fools. This should be no surprise to the Believer, since we already know that, ”the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I've heard Christian friends and leaders say that it's not possible to use reason, logic and facts to show the existence of God. While this may be true, Vox does an absolute masterful job of using those three things to eviscerate the arguments of D,H and H. Yes, its true that as believers we need to share the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ with those who hold an atheistic worldview, but some of them, may need to have their faith system destroyed first. The Irrational Atheist is an intellectual challenge to the commonly used arguments by many atheists. Rather than appeal to the atheist using the Book they consider to be fairy tales, Vox resorts to bearding the lions in their own den, using their own arguments.
Who should read this book? Atheists who are willing to consider that fact that many of their arguments and the champions of those arguments are fatally flawed. Atheists who are convinced that they are the font of all knowledge and truth, you'll find the answer is, not so much. Any student, high school or college who is currently studying worldviews, belief systems and/or theology. Christians who desire a useful tool for understanding and confronting the atheistic worldview. And Christians who are dealing with militant atheists using D,H and H as sources of information in their attacks on Christianity.
A few disclaimers. Vox writes with a slash and burn style. A take no prisoners, blow them up and leave a smoking hole mentality. Some in the Christian community are going to be offended by this approach. I would remind them that our Lord had some rather harsh things to say to some of His critics. You don't call someone a “generation of vipers”, “whited sepulchres”, and “fools” without having your targets tend to react unfavorably to these terms. Vox does not treat D,H and H with kid gloves. It's an in your face, put up or shut up, throw down.
Some in the Christian community will dislike Vox's theology. Fine, you need to read the book for all of the information given related to atheistic thoughts and ideas, so that you may better understand how to defend your own beliefs and worldview. If you find his notions of AI and free will to be different than your own, you will have still benefited from reading the book.
One other thing. Sometimes Vox uses descriptions which are, well, crude. While they illustrate the point he is trying to make, they can be more than a little over the edge. You've been warned.
The Irrational Atheist is a great read. It challenges the proponents of atheism on their philosophies, and in the end, leaves them looking defenseless and hollow. I believe that Vox has a personal dislike for those spreading the lies of Godless atheism because he has seen the results of their ideas in the lives of those around him, including his friend in that column years ago. So in this book he makes his attempt to show the folly of their belief system. If they are messed up a little in the process, what are they going to do, appeal to a higher authority for vengeance?

Is Mike Huckabee a Liberal?

From

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/

Joe Carter

Am I wrong about Mike Huckabee?

For the past few months I've been arguing that Governor Huckabee is a solid and consistent conservative. I even went to work for his campaign in a role that gave me a clear and detailed view of both his record and his policy positions.

Yet many conservatives that I respect believe that I am wrong. In the last debate Sen. Thompson even said Huckabee would "bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies." Are they seeing something that I am not?


My answer,
First a story. Then an explanation.

In 2000 Jorge the Younger Shrub was campaigning for President here in Iowa. And the most powerful radio station in Iowa is WHO radio. They are very conservative in philosophy, the hosts are conservative and if your going to reach a conservative audience you have to go there and make an appearance.

Now Jorge made his appearance, and as the Mickelson show progressed Jorge made his claim of being a "compassionate conservative". Asked to explain, he talked about a smarter, less intrusive government, a government that would not tell people what to do, it would respond to their needs. A government that would follow the Constitution.

Now up to this point I was convinced. That sounded really good. That sounds like the opposite of Bill and Hillary care, cradle to grave nannyism. I was ready to buy Jorge the Younger, he was the man.

That all changed in the next sentence. Jorge said, I want to be the education president. Mickelson, said, Please explain. I want to make our education system better, I want our students to learn faster and help those who are falling through the cracks.

And there is the nut of the problem. One sentence, a government that follows the Constitution. The next he wants to be the education president, government giving us a bigger better education system.

Nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. Let me repeat that. NOWHERE

Jorge the Younger and now Mike Huckabee have accepted the liberal position that since some other fool violated the Constitution and entangled the Federal Government in the education system, therefore it's his job to make the education system bigger and better.

A conservative/Constitutionalist would close the Department of Education.

Since governor Huckabee has proposed fixing the education system, he clearly does not understand the role of the federal government. Therefore one can only conclude that he is a liberal.

Maybe you doubt my characterizations of Huckabee's ideas.

In an article/chart in the Des Moines Sunday Register Sunday July 29, Mike gave the following answers.

Question, What would you do to ensure U.S fourth graders are competitive in academic achievement with there international peers in math, science, and reading?

Huckabee said he would create preschool programs and implement a program similar to Arkansas' Smart Start, which targets children in kindergarten through fourth grade with increased standards and accountability measures.

Question, What, if anything, would you do to change the No Child Left Behind legislation, and how much, if any, federal money needs to be added to the program?

My comment, this legislation was written by Ted Kennedy.

Huckabee said the legislation should be tweaked to create a level playing field for schools with disproportionately large numbers of children who can't speak English, who live in poverty or who have other disadvantages. He doesn't support increasing federal money for the program because such money often comes with stipulations that don't allow states to make localized decisions about education.

Are you concerned about the amount of college debt young people have? If so, what should the federal government do to help solve this problem?

Huckabee said he would allocate money to federally funded, state-administered scholarships for college graduates who who are willing to go into national service outside of the military, such as teaching in impoverished areas of the country. He also supports similar merit-based scholarships for college students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Want to see how a conservative/constitutionalist answers the same questions?

----- said he would get the federal government out of the classroom and allow states, local officials and parents to make the decisions that are best for their individual situations.

---- said that No Child Left Behind is uncontitutional legislation that usurped state and local authority over education. He said he would seek to repeal the law and give the money being spent on No Child Left Behind back to America's parents so they could once again be in charge of their children's educations.

---- said he is concerned about college debt, and the best way to combat it is to lower the tax burden on the American family so a person can have more resources to devote to education.

I rest my case. Mike Huckabee is a classic big government liberal, because he has accepted the principle that government can do a better job of managing education or (fill in the blank) than individuals can.

On the other hand the conservative/constitutionalist is more concerned with the individual, with protecting and empowering the parent/family than expanding or (tweaking) the existing system.

Isn't this cool?