For those who are upset about the way that the Republican party has handled, or mishandled, the immigration issue and want to punish the Republicans by sitting out the November midterm elections, the pro terrorist decision by the Supreme Court today should change your mind.
Imagine this for a moment. You sat home, let encouraged Democrats go to the polls and elect a Democratic House and Senate. President Bush gets another chance to nominate not one, but two, choices on the supreme court. They will replace two liberals. What will President Bush do?
Well, he can't nominate a real conservative say like federal appeals court judge Janice Rogers Brown because the Democrats control the Senate. They already dragged her nomination out for several years before a Republican Senate forced the Constitutional option.
So, Mr. Bush would have to nominate a milquetoast candidate because there is not a Republican Senate.
In 2004, the Republicans increased to 55 seats in the Senate. That is why Mr. Bush could nominate John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
While we all may be upset that the Republicans have made some grievous errors and may blow the immigration bill, remember that in November, go vote, vote for the Republicans and increase the number of Senators especially so that when the time comes, Mr. Bush can nominate judicical conservatives who actually read the United States constitution, not international law.
We saw today what happens when five liberal justices can not read our constitution. Remember that in November!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Watered Down Resolutions=Watered Down Results
The resolution that will be debated on tomorrow in the House Of Representatives in response to the Los Angeles & New York Times reckless publication of owe the government is secretly tracking terrorist money would almost be a waste of time. But, if congress were in the hands of the Democrats, there would not be a resolution of this nature but of one praising the above media outlets.
Where the Republicans go wrong is not mentioning the two Times newspapers by name as obstructionists and threats to national security. And that makes this a watered-down resolution.
Many blogs like Hugh Hewitt and Carol Platt Libau are rightfully outraged. And I am not outraged but amused. For as much as we like to rightfully call the MSM to the carpet, these feckless politicians need to use them for their own political ends. It is why many are frustrated not just with the Republicans but politics in general.
So, why the shock? I have to admit, I do not know. I do know that this should not be seen as another setback for the Republicans. It just means we have to work harder to elect more Republicans and some with a backbone.
It is why the Osamas and Hamas of the world laugh at us. If these spineless, feckless politicians can not, in a resolution, stand up and call the Los Angeles Times and New York Times obstructionists, potential traitors and wanting an American defeat, then we deserve what we get.
I say, and will, call and e-mail your congressman and demand that the resolution be reworded to include the names of the offending publications.
A note, even though my congressman is a Democrat, if you are in that situation, call or e-mail for him or her to vote for the resolution. For a watered-down one is better than none at all.
It is why we have to elect more Republicans, those not afraid to call those who wish harm against the United States what they are. Fifth Columists for our enemies.
Where the Republicans go wrong is not mentioning the two Times newspapers by name as obstructionists and threats to national security. And that makes this a watered-down resolution.
Many blogs like Hugh Hewitt and Carol Platt Libau are rightfully outraged. And I am not outraged but amused. For as much as we like to rightfully call the MSM to the carpet, these feckless politicians need to use them for their own political ends. It is why many are frustrated not just with the Republicans but politics in general.
So, why the shock? I have to admit, I do not know. I do know that this should not be seen as another setback for the Republicans. It just means we have to work harder to elect more Republicans and some with a backbone.
It is why the Osamas and Hamas of the world laugh at us. If these spineless, feckless politicians can not, in a resolution, stand up and call the Los Angeles Times and New York Times obstructionists, potential traitors and wanting an American defeat, then we deserve what we get.
I say, and will, call and e-mail your congressman and demand that the resolution be reworded to include the names of the offending publications.
A note, even though my congressman is a Democrat, if you are in that situation, call or e-mail for him or her to vote for the resolution. For a watered-down one is better than none at all.
It is why we have to elect more Republicans, those not afraid to call those who wish harm against the United States what they are. Fifth Columists for our enemies.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Bishop And Mother Jesus
Did you know that we have a new Lord and Savior?
You didn't? Well, according the the Presiding Bishop elect of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Schori, we do.
In a sermon the Sunday after her dubious election as the next presiding bishop, she wanted to give trust in "Our mother Jesus (who) gives birth to a new creation." and apparently, a new gender.
I have read many versions of the Holy Bible from the King James to the New International Version, and not even in the politically correct version of the the NIV does it refer to Jesus Christ as a mother.
Correctly, all versions of the Holy Bible refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. One may have child of God, but not mother.
This is why people like myself wonder where the Episcopal Church is going.
It is one thing to use hokey wording of the trinity blessing, Father, Son and Holy Ghost(Spirit). This past Sunday in the main service, we used, "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer." Why, it is hard to tell if we are in a Christian church with such silliness.
But to refer to the Savior of the world as a mother when he is the Son of God shows bibical illiteracy.
If this is the best that the Episcopal Church can do for the spiritual leader of our flock, it will be an amusing nine years.
While the divinity of Jesus Christ is mocked and new versions of the trinity blessing are being forced down our throats, we who believe in the proper traditions of the church must not leave but stand up and call this mockery what it is. After all, it will be the churches and people who stand for the truth and for Jesus Christ, Son of God and savior of the world, that will thrive and prosper and bring a new generation the Good News of Jesus Christ. Not revisionists without reason.
You didn't? Well, according the the Presiding Bishop elect of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Schori, we do.
In a sermon the Sunday after her dubious election as the next presiding bishop, she wanted to give trust in "Our mother Jesus (who) gives birth to a new creation." and apparently, a new gender.
I have read many versions of the Holy Bible from the King James to the New International Version, and not even in the politically correct version of the the NIV does it refer to Jesus Christ as a mother.
Correctly, all versions of the Holy Bible refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. One may have child of God, but not mother.
This is why people like myself wonder where the Episcopal Church is going.
It is one thing to use hokey wording of the trinity blessing, Father, Son and Holy Ghost(Spirit). This past Sunday in the main service, we used, "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer." Why, it is hard to tell if we are in a Christian church with such silliness.
But to refer to the Savior of the world as a mother when he is the Son of God shows bibical illiteracy.
If this is the best that the Episcopal Church can do for the spiritual leader of our flock, it will be an amusing nine years.
While the divinity of Jesus Christ is mocked and new versions of the trinity blessing are being forced down our throats, we who believe in the proper traditions of the church must not leave but stand up and call this mockery what it is. After all, it will be the churches and people who stand for the truth and for Jesus Christ, Son of God and savior of the world, that will thrive and prosper and bring a new generation the Good News of Jesus Christ. Not revisionists without reason.
The Decline of a Once decent Newspaper
It is not every day that, before our eyes, a once decent newspaper goes so off the deep end that it forces a precipitous decline for which there may not be a recovery.
During World War II, the Los Angeles Times ran many stories about the conflict with the tag line "Cleared by military censors." That is when the Times and much of the American media understood who the enemy was and supported President Franklin Roosevelt and the war effort.
The military did, infact, censor many stories so that the enemy, Germany, Italy and Japan, did not know anything.
That was because we knew we were in a war.
Today, President Bush walks the fine line between the fact we are in a war that the type we have not been in before. But, so that the economy does not go into the tank, we often do not emphasize that we are in a war with an enemy even more brutal than the World War II Axis powers.
And that is why the New York Times and Los Angeles Times feel it is ok to publish stories that clearly give the enemy full knowledge of what we are doing to fight through all legitimate, yet in this case secret, means.
The Los Angeles Times does not really believe this is a war. Or maybe they do not like the fact we are fighting back against radical Islam. Since they are the enemy of the West and especially the United States, they must be ok.
That is all that one can assume by the response that Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus gave in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) show yesterday.
At least Mr. McManus gave an interview with an adversarial voice. The managing editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, went on CNN for the softball questions.
The Los Angeles Times was once called a "right wing rag" by its critics, but once they changed direction in the 1960s, it was praised by the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post and the big three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC. Talk about an "Axis of Evil." !
Now, the Los Angeles Times is nothing but a left wing rag that seems hell bent on destroying itself from within. While it is at it, it will try to ruin the war effort at every turn.
For President Bush, he needs to talk more and more about not just the war in the Iraq theatre but Afghanistan and world wide so that not just the American people, but the world knows that we are serious.
Maybe then, the declining Los Angeles Times and its allies will understand that it is not about bringing down any given presidential administration, but being prudent, to quote another President Bush. It means not publishing any story in hopes that this President Bush will be brought down.
There is something called patriotism. The Los Angeles Times could practice it sometime.
During World War II, the Los Angeles Times ran many stories about the conflict with the tag line "Cleared by military censors." That is when the Times and much of the American media understood who the enemy was and supported President Franklin Roosevelt and the war effort.
The military did, infact, censor many stories so that the enemy, Germany, Italy and Japan, did not know anything.
That was because we knew we were in a war.
Today, President Bush walks the fine line between the fact we are in a war that the type we have not been in before. But, so that the economy does not go into the tank, we often do not emphasize that we are in a war with an enemy even more brutal than the World War II Axis powers.
And that is why the New York Times and Los Angeles Times feel it is ok to publish stories that clearly give the enemy full knowledge of what we are doing to fight through all legitimate, yet in this case secret, means.
The Los Angeles Times does not really believe this is a war. Or maybe they do not like the fact we are fighting back against radical Islam. Since they are the enemy of the West and especially the United States, they must be ok.
That is all that one can assume by the response that Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus gave in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) show yesterday.
At least Mr. McManus gave an interview with an adversarial voice. The managing editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, went on CNN for the softball questions.
The Los Angeles Times was once called a "right wing rag" by its critics, but once they changed direction in the 1960s, it was praised by the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post and the big three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC. Talk about an "Axis of Evil." !
Now, the Los Angeles Times is nothing but a left wing rag that seems hell bent on destroying itself from within. While it is at it, it will try to ruin the war effort at every turn.
For President Bush, he needs to talk more and more about not just the war in the Iraq theatre but Afghanistan and world wide so that not just the American people, but the world knows that we are serious.
Maybe then, the declining Los Angeles Times and its allies will understand that it is not about bringing down any given presidential administration, but being prudent, to quote another President Bush. It means not publishing any story in hopes that this President Bush will be brought down.
There is something called patriotism. The Los Angeles Times could practice it sometime.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
As is the custom every three years, the Episcopal Church holds the General Convention and the latest one just concluded in Columbus, Ohio.
To say the least, it was controversial.
The delegates elected a new presiding bishop and chose a woman-the wrong woman, Katherine Schori, Bishop of Nevada.
In and of itself, have a woman as the presiding bishop is nothing I object to. It is that Bishop Schori was the most liberal of the seven candidates. In her acceptance statement, she spoke of the need for universal healthcare, more acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church, a whole host of other liberal social concerns. Too bad she did not address the spiritual needs and or concerns of the members of the church. That would mean Bishop Schori would have to take a strong position, something that unless the is a social conciouness to it, most are unwilling to take.
Then in regards to the gay and lesbian issue, the delegates and bishops did a double take. At one point a resolution passed to ignore the Windsor Report that asked to put a moratorium on elevating non-celibate gays and lesbians to bishops.Then at the end of the day, they did an about face and decided to accept a watered-down support of the Report and thus there will be a moratorium on elevating gays and lesbians to becoming bishops. And that is a good thing.
The Anglican Communion is at the breaking point and because so many liberal Episcopalians do not follow traditional Anglican ethos of using Scripture, tradition and reason to get from point a to b, they are hastening the process.
But someone must have got to them because this watered down acceptance of the Windsor Report will stop the hemorrhaging-for now.
I for one think that many of these liberals do not want to face the prospect of years of spending in courts as more and more parishes and possibly whole dioceses break away. Now those that support the strong liberal positions at the expense of biblical knowledge and practice may actually listen to those who are really moderate and even traditional and find the common ground to spread the Great Commission of delivering the saving message of Jesus Christ.
It is time to work together for the common good of all people, not just the liberal or conservatives favorite group
To say the least, it was controversial.
The delegates elected a new presiding bishop and chose a woman-the wrong woman, Katherine Schori, Bishop of Nevada.
In and of itself, have a woman as the presiding bishop is nothing I object to. It is that Bishop Schori was the most liberal of the seven candidates. In her acceptance statement, she spoke of the need for universal healthcare, more acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church, a whole host of other liberal social concerns. Too bad she did not address the spiritual needs and or concerns of the members of the church. That would mean Bishop Schori would have to take a strong position, something that unless the is a social conciouness to it, most are unwilling to take.
Then in regards to the gay and lesbian issue, the delegates and bishops did a double take. At one point a resolution passed to ignore the Windsor Report that asked to put a moratorium on elevating non-celibate gays and lesbians to bishops.Then at the end of the day, they did an about face and decided to accept a watered-down support of the Report and thus there will be a moratorium on elevating gays and lesbians to becoming bishops. And that is a good thing.
The Anglican Communion is at the breaking point and because so many liberal Episcopalians do not follow traditional Anglican ethos of using Scripture, tradition and reason to get from point a to b, they are hastening the process.
But someone must have got to them because this watered down acceptance of the Windsor Report will stop the hemorrhaging-for now.
I for one think that many of these liberals do not want to face the prospect of years of spending in courts as more and more parishes and possibly whole dioceses break away. Now those that support the strong liberal positions at the expense of biblical knowledge and practice may actually listen to those who are really moderate and even traditional and find the common ground to spread the Great Commission of delivering the saving message of Jesus Christ.
It is time to work together for the common good of all people, not just the liberal or conservatives favorite group
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
How Dare Senator Durbin!
Well, the esteemed senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, is at it again with insane comments concerning our Iraq policy, this time using two brave soldiers that were horrifically executed by the barbarous thugs that seek to drive us out and create a civil war in Iraq.
The erstwhile senator said that the two soldiers horrific death is a direct result of the failed policy in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
So to understand the logic that Mr. Durbin applies, if a police officer dies in the line of duty say doing a drug bust, is that in vain because we are not winning the War On Drugs?
Or if an officer is killed by a drunk driver, is it in vain because there are still drunk drivers and we will never be able to completely stop drunk driving?
Well, at this point, we do not have total control in Iraq. These brave soldiers DID NOT DIE IN VAIN! They died to help a people that have long suffered under the rule of the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.
But to follow the lead of Mr. Durbin and allies such as the 2004 presidential election loser, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis), we should just set a date and whether or not Iraq is functioning and has a stable government, we should get all of our troops out.
The future Defense Secretary in a, God forbid, Democratic administration, C0ngressman John Murtha (D-Penn), said we could just redeploy troops to Kuwait, or Duabi or Saudi Arabia, oh wait we can't do that because Saudi Arabia wants us out of there. Oh well, we can just go to Okinawa according to Mr. Murtha when he was on Meet the Press last Sunday.
I know that Democrats just hate President Bush so much that they do not care who gets hurt in their quest to eventually impeach him because they actually believe that Mr. Bush not only "stole" the 2000 election, but 2004 as well.
I hope that fellow senators call Mr. Durbin to task for dragging the death at the hands of al-Queda in Iraq of two American soldiers who are actually in the front lines in the War Against Terror. Because men like Mr. Durbin are not worthy to be benchwarmers in the War Against Terror.
The erstwhile senator said that the two soldiers horrific death is a direct result of the failed policy in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
So to understand the logic that Mr. Durbin applies, if a police officer dies in the line of duty say doing a drug bust, is that in vain because we are not winning the War On Drugs?
Or if an officer is killed by a drunk driver, is it in vain because there are still drunk drivers and we will never be able to completely stop drunk driving?
Well, at this point, we do not have total control in Iraq. These brave soldiers DID NOT DIE IN VAIN! They died to help a people that have long suffered under the rule of the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.
But to follow the lead of Mr. Durbin and allies such as the 2004 presidential election loser, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis), we should just set a date and whether or not Iraq is functioning and has a stable government, we should get all of our troops out.
The future Defense Secretary in a, God forbid, Democratic administration, C0ngressman John Murtha (D-Penn), said we could just redeploy troops to Kuwait, or Duabi or Saudi Arabia, oh wait we can't do that because Saudi Arabia wants us out of there. Oh well, we can just go to Okinawa according to Mr. Murtha when he was on Meet the Press last Sunday.
I know that Democrats just hate President Bush so much that they do not care who gets hurt in their quest to eventually impeach him because they actually believe that Mr. Bush not only "stole" the 2000 election, but 2004 as well.
I hope that fellow senators call Mr. Durbin to task for dragging the death at the hands of al-Queda in Iraq of two American soldiers who are actually in the front lines in the War Against Terror. Because men like Mr. Durbin are not worthy to be benchwarmers in the War Against Terror.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Modern Liberalism Defined
Today we hear the word liberalism and it invokes the memories of great American patriots such as Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy. These were leaders who believed in lifting all Americans up and knew that there was a common enemy. First it was Nazism and fascism. Then these leaders recognized Communism as the enemy. Also, they did not believe that the government could solve all problems but could be an aid-a hand up and a way for many people to get a good education and move up the economic ladder.
Today, liberalism of that nature is dead. It now must be called by its proper name-socialism.
It is no longer for the underdog as the whole. It no longer wants to have people of genuine faith-be it Christian, traditional Judaism or Islam as part of a great coalition. It is for government to be a nanny to all. It is against those that are white, traditional males. But if one is a transgendered non European, get to the front of the line for the government handout.
The problem is that modern liberalism-socialism-is the greatest threat to America today. It is the fundamental reason that the Democrats want us to end our efforts in Iraq and not to treat the War Against Terror as a war. For you see, if that is the case, that means we must fund the military and police and other law enforcement. That will take away from some grandiose social welfare program that the socialists can enact and take credit for.
The first thing that the Democrats announce as a way to get control of either or both Houses of congress in an increase in the minimum wage. It is always a jobs killer. They want to increase it to $7.25 an hour. In many cities in which the more radical Democrats control, they have enacted so-called "living wage" laws. Again, for the average small business, it is a jobs killer. A major business will simply pick up and move to a more friendly business climate. Big, socialist dominated cities like Los Angeles wonder why few major companies call Los Angeles their home base. Because with all the regulations, business know they can get a better deal someplace else.
We who are conservative and Republicans seem to be afraid to call modern liberalism what it is. Even Ann Coulter referred to it as the Church of Liberalism. It should be the Church of Socialism.
When we are able to call it what it is, then the American people can make a serious and educated decision as to what way they would like America to go.
At one time, Democrats and Republicans could agree on who was the common enemy. Today, Democrats have absolute hatred of President Bush that they would rather see this nation lose to weaken and possibly impeach him. Many even embrace the radical Islamists because they are the enemy of Mr. Bush. I have a news flash. The enemy of the United States is radical Islam. It is bin Laden, the Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq. They may not like President Bush, but they should be supportive of the effort to succeed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in getting those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They need to stop talking about the date to cut and run from Iraq and to crush the insurgents once and for all in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to take on Iran to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb. But alas, if we do that, it ends the attempt to socialize the United States.
And that is the sorry state of liberalism today in the United States.
The most telling tale is in Connecticut as a reliable liberal, Sen Joseph Lieberman is facing a potentially serious primary challenge. The reason? Because he actually has the nerve to support President Bush and sees that there is a War Against Terror. If he loses, the United States loses and the socialists tighten their grip on the Democratic party.
Today, liberalism of that nature is dead. It now must be called by its proper name-socialism.
It is no longer for the underdog as the whole. It no longer wants to have people of genuine faith-be it Christian, traditional Judaism or Islam as part of a great coalition. It is for government to be a nanny to all. It is against those that are white, traditional males. But if one is a transgendered non European, get to the front of the line for the government handout.
The problem is that modern liberalism-socialism-is the greatest threat to America today. It is the fundamental reason that the Democrats want us to end our efforts in Iraq and not to treat the War Against Terror as a war. For you see, if that is the case, that means we must fund the military and police and other law enforcement. That will take away from some grandiose social welfare program that the socialists can enact and take credit for.
The first thing that the Democrats announce as a way to get control of either or both Houses of congress in an increase in the minimum wage. It is always a jobs killer. They want to increase it to $7.25 an hour. In many cities in which the more radical Democrats control, they have enacted so-called "living wage" laws. Again, for the average small business, it is a jobs killer. A major business will simply pick up and move to a more friendly business climate. Big, socialist dominated cities like Los Angeles wonder why few major companies call Los Angeles their home base. Because with all the regulations, business know they can get a better deal someplace else.
We who are conservative and Republicans seem to be afraid to call modern liberalism what it is. Even Ann Coulter referred to it as the Church of Liberalism. It should be the Church of Socialism.
When we are able to call it what it is, then the American people can make a serious and educated decision as to what way they would like America to go.
At one time, Democrats and Republicans could agree on who was the common enemy. Today, Democrats have absolute hatred of President Bush that they would rather see this nation lose to weaken and possibly impeach him. Many even embrace the radical Islamists because they are the enemy of Mr. Bush. I have a news flash. The enemy of the United States is radical Islam. It is bin Laden, the Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq. They may not like President Bush, but they should be supportive of the effort to succeed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in getting those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They need to stop talking about the date to cut and run from Iraq and to crush the insurgents once and for all in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to take on Iran to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb. But alas, if we do that, it ends the attempt to socialize the United States.
And that is the sorry state of liberalism today in the United States.
The most telling tale is in Connecticut as a reliable liberal, Sen Joseph Lieberman is facing a potentially serious primary challenge. The reason? Because he actually has the nerve to support President Bush and sees that there is a War Against Terror. If he loses, the United States loses and the socialists tighten their grip on the Democratic party.
Its A Deep Cliff For The Episcopal Church
In a previous post, I lamented the Episcopal Church choosing the wrong woman for the post of presiding bishop. The lament continues.
Today at General Convention, the church leadership voted to reject a moratorium on promoting gay and lesbians to diocesan bishops to preserve Anglican unity.
No matter how one feels on the issue, a moratorium is not a bad thing while good people on both sides find a way to get to a compromise-the traditional Anglican/Episcopal way.
But like the cliff divers in Mazlatan, Mexico, the liberal dominated House of Bishops and House of Deputies keep going off the cliff thinking that the opinion and thought of the pew sitter does not matter. Like all good liberals, they know what is the best for the rest of us and are just moving us along in their way.
Well, I think the pew sitter may move another way-out the door.
Why this seems to be the route the liberals, who claim that they are following Anglican ethos is baffling.
As late as 1960, the Episcopal Church had nearly 4,000,000 members. Today, we struggle around 2,000,000, give or take. Forty-six years, a solid 50 percent decline in members. No one on any side can say that this is a good thing.
Because of this, both sides are pointing fingers as to why this precipitous decline has occurred. The liberal side is firmly entrenched and they need to take responsibility.
But alas, they do not. They are blaming genuine moderates and traditionalists as being divisive-typical M.O. But they do not see what this kind of rejection does to be divisive.
So, why does someone like me stay, despite the seemingly obvious?
Because eventually the liberals will run their course and will need to genuinely reach out to those moderates and traditionalists who do stay and work together for the great commission. To take Jesus Christ to the world.
I am an optimist, but these divisive events do take me aback-but more determined to be there to pick up the pieces and renew the church.
Today at General Convention, the church leadership voted to reject a moratorium on promoting gay and lesbians to diocesan bishops to preserve Anglican unity.
No matter how one feels on the issue, a moratorium is not a bad thing while good people on both sides find a way to get to a compromise-the traditional Anglican/Episcopal way.
But like the cliff divers in Mazlatan, Mexico, the liberal dominated House of Bishops and House of Deputies keep going off the cliff thinking that the opinion and thought of the pew sitter does not matter. Like all good liberals, they know what is the best for the rest of us and are just moving us along in their way.
Well, I think the pew sitter may move another way-out the door.
Why this seems to be the route the liberals, who claim that they are following Anglican ethos is baffling.
As late as 1960, the Episcopal Church had nearly 4,000,000 members. Today, we struggle around 2,000,000, give or take. Forty-six years, a solid 50 percent decline in members. No one on any side can say that this is a good thing.
Because of this, both sides are pointing fingers as to why this precipitous decline has occurred. The liberal side is firmly entrenched and they need to take responsibility.
But alas, they do not. They are blaming genuine moderates and traditionalists as being divisive-typical M.O. But they do not see what this kind of rejection does to be divisive.
So, why does someone like me stay, despite the seemingly obvious?
Because eventually the liberals will run their course and will need to genuinely reach out to those moderates and traditionalists who do stay and work together for the great commission. To take Jesus Christ to the world.
I am an optimist, but these divisive events do take me aback-but more determined to be there to pick up the pieces and renew the church.
Monday, June 19, 2006
The Episcopal Church Goes Over The Cliff
The Episcopal Church in a not too unexpected move voted a woman to be the next Presiding Bishop and it is not that she is a woman that makes her election sad. It is because she is the most liberal of those nominated and the least qualified.
Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, was elected by a vote in the House of Bishops, 95-82 over the Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley.
Why is she not one of the most qualified?
For one, she has only been an ordained priest for 12 years and never in charge of a parish. She has had a meteoric rise in the church because she meets two qualifications. She is a woman and very liberal.
A taste of Bishop Schori today on an interview on CNN (www.cnn.com). She could not answer simply what happens when we die. She gave a very convoluted answer about how we live our day to day life and that maybe how it is in the afterlife. How about this orthodox Christian answer. When we die, because we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we are given eternal life and wait for his resurrection to share in that eternal life when he returns in power and glory? That may be too much for the new bishop.
She favors the blessing of same sex unions that will eventually lead to an outright marriage rite, even though there is nothing that would support that in the Holy Bible and theologically.
Also, there are three dioceses in the Episcopal Church that do not recognize the ordination of women. They will more than likely get oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury and that will lead to the church within the church.
At the very least there are at least 10 percent of the churches within the Episcopal Church that will look to other leadership or outright splitting from the church.
What does this all mean?
It may actually mean the apex of the liberal decimation of the church.
The church will be spending a lot of time and money that they will find they do not have fighting churches and whole dioceses that will leave not because she is a woman bishop. She is the wrong woman to lead the church.
For years many churches have built large endowments. They will clearly be in jeopardy when some of those churches, without a doubt, will breakaway or not recognize Bishop Schori's authority.
At some point, the church will hemorrhage financially and thus will do one of two things.
Cut deals that the liberals will stop the march towards irrelevancy or declare bankruptcy because there will not be enough lawyers or money to stop the churches or dioceses from seeking other leadership or breakaway outright.
In California, several churches have left the Episcopal Church and their respective diocesan bishops have fought for the land and property. The dioceses have lost every case.
That is the sad future for the next nine years.
The church has voted for certain conflict instead of building up the Kingdom of God: they are hellbent on redefing God and building up a politically correct socialistic society that makes God and Jesus Christ nothing but an afterthought.
But this is a time of seeing what kind of leadership will come out of this and whether those who look at the church as an institution of Jesus Christ and God will prevail.
Please pray for the Episcopal Church-we really need it!
Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, was elected by a vote in the House of Bishops, 95-82 over the Bishop of Alabama, Henry N. Parsley.
Why is she not one of the most qualified?
For one, she has only been an ordained priest for 12 years and never in charge of a parish. She has had a meteoric rise in the church because she meets two qualifications. She is a woman and very liberal.
A taste of Bishop Schori today on an interview on CNN (www.cnn.com). She could not answer simply what happens when we die. She gave a very convoluted answer about how we live our day to day life and that maybe how it is in the afterlife. How about this orthodox Christian answer. When we die, because we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we are given eternal life and wait for his resurrection to share in that eternal life when he returns in power and glory? That may be too much for the new bishop.
She favors the blessing of same sex unions that will eventually lead to an outright marriage rite, even though there is nothing that would support that in the Holy Bible and theologically.
Also, there are three dioceses in the Episcopal Church that do not recognize the ordination of women. They will more than likely get oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury and that will lead to the church within the church.
At the very least there are at least 10 percent of the churches within the Episcopal Church that will look to other leadership or outright splitting from the church.
What does this all mean?
It may actually mean the apex of the liberal decimation of the church.
The church will be spending a lot of time and money that they will find they do not have fighting churches and whole dioceses that will leave not because she is a woman bishop. She is the wrong woman to lead the church.
For years many churches have built large endowments. They will clearly be in jeopardy when some of those churches, without a doubt, will breakaway or not recognize Bishop Schori's authority.
At some point, the church will hemorrhage financially and thus will do one of two things.
Cut deals that the liberals will stop the march towards irrelevancy or declare bankruptcy because there will not be enough lawyers or money to stop the churches or dioceses from seeking other leadership or breakaway outright.
In California, several churches have left the Episcopal Church and their respective diocesan bishops have fought for the land and property. The dioceses have lost every case.
That is the sad future for the next nine years.
The church has voted for certain conflict instead of building up the Kingdom of God: they are hellbent on redefing God and building up a politically correct socialistic society that makes God and Jesus Christ nothing but an afterthought.
But this is a time of seeing what kind of leadership will come out of this and whether those who look at the church as an institution of Jesus Christ and God will prevail.
Please pray for the Episcopal Church-we really need it!
Friday, June 16, 2006
Another Reason the Episcopal Church Is Mocked
It is amazing that in the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church meeting in Columbus, Ohio has to have a resolution that affirms that salvation is through Christ alone, but there it is in black & white.
The fact that one of the leading reformed denominations in Christendom has to affirm a basic belief is astounding, but go the the link (www.ge2006.org) and you will see for yourself.
If the church would actually read the Holy Bible, one would see for himself the words of John 14:6-"I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." It is Basic Christianity 101.
But, this is the same Episcopal Church that allows the heretical Bishop John Shelby Spong all the rights and privileges of a retired bishop-excommunication apparently not one of them.
It is for that reason that members of the House of Deputies-the lay people of the church had to put this resolution forward. The thought that the basic, fundamental belief of the practicing Christian is under dispute.
Let me be clear, I do not mean that this is at the expense of those of another faith. I have the utmost and strong respect of those who believe another way. But, what it means to share the Christian message of love through Jesus Christ, without shame, is what this means to me. For I am a sinner and yet because I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I have a way to the father.
But for some people who profess to be Christian, that is offensive to those of other faiths. Not at all, it is simply the words of Jesus as to his role in the world as he understands it from God himself.
It is in that context that the above statement of Christ himself should be read and shared with those not of the Christian faith.
The fact is that many Episcopalians will shudder in horror that such a resolution may infact be voted on. It should be and pass overwhelmingly.
But I doubt it for the liberal domination of the church will sweep this aside and continue the path that will, eventually make the Episcopal Church irrelevant in modern Christianity.
I hope that I am wrong and the church will uphold that, for a Christian, salvation is through Christ alone.
The fact that one of the leading reformed denominations in Christendom has to affirm a basic belief is astounding, but go the the link (www.ge2006.org) and you will see for yourself.
If the church would actually read the Holy Bible, one would see for himself the words of John 14:6-"I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." It is Basic Christianity 101.
But, this is the same Episcopal Church that allows the heretical Bishop John Shelby Spong all the rights and privileges of a retired bishop-excommunication apparently not one of them.
It is for that reason that members of the House of Deputies-the lay people of the church had to put this resolution forward. The thought that the basic, fundamental belief of the practicing Christian is under dispute.
Let me be clear, I do not mean that this is at the expense of those of another faith. I have the utmost and strong respect of those who believe another way. But, what it means to share the Christian message of love through Jesus Christ, without shame, is what this means to me. For I am a sinner and yet because I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I have a way to the father.
But for some people who profess to be Christian, that is offensive to those of other faiths. Not at all, it is simply the words of Jesus as to his role in the world as he understands it from God himself.
It is in that context that the above statement of Christ himself should be read and shared with those not of the Christian faith.
The fact is that many Episcopalians will shudder in horror that such a resolution may infact be voted on. It should be and pass overwhelmingly.
But I doubt it for the liberal domination of the church will sweep this aside and continue the path that will, eventually make the Episcopal Church irrelevant in modern Christianity.
I hope that I am wrong and the church will uphold that, for a Christian, salvation is through Christ alone.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Interleague Baseball-The Work Of The Devil!
It is the saddest time in the baseball season as it is the beginning of a half month of interleague play.
For the casual baseball fan, this means nothing.
But for those of us who still can not believe that the American League still has the designated hitter, this is only one more abomination that has been forced on us true fans by Commissioner Bud Selig.
These games, which force American League teams to play National League teams in regular season games that count in the standings used to be played only twice in a season. The first was correctly during the exhibition season and then in October during the World Series.
But Mr. Selig, who wanted to totally reorganize the two leagues and make a total mockery of Major League baseball got this compromise throughout the owners after the disastrous strike of the mid 90s. It should be noted that, rightfully, when he was owner of the Texas Rangers, George W. Bush was the only owner to vote against this scheme.
The "goal" was to create rivalries where none existed before.
Well, Mr Selig, you can not force what is not there. There is no natural rivalry between the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. They just happen to be in the same state and more or less an excuse for the retirees to see the teams in the cities that they left behind.
There have always been strong rivalries in baseball. The Dodgers-Giants. The Yankees-Red Sox, The Cubs-Cardinals, the list goes on.
This happened by events, not artificial attempts to line the pockets of out of touch owners who can care less about what real fans think and look to fairweather fans that have no aprecitation of the history and majesty of the game.
It is this atmosphere that may have led some of the great hitters of the game like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds to take steroids and the same Mr. Selig and company looked the other way until it became ridiculous to have 70 home run seasons become commonplace.
I love baseball and the Los Angeles Dodgers and I will still watch these interleague games because, unfortunately they do count.
Despite the attempts by cretins like Bud Selig and his cronies to ruin the greatest of American sports, because it is baseball that I still love the game and believe that this is just a dark era and that some sanity will eventually prevail. Hopefully that will be in my lifetime!
For the casual baseball fan, this means nothing.
But for those of us who still can not believe that the American League still has the designated hitter, this is only one more abomination that has been forced on us true fans by Commissioner Bud Selig.
These games, which force American League teams to play National League teams in regular season games that count in the standings used to be played only twice in a season. The first was correctly during the exhibition season and then in October during the World Series.
But Mr. Selig, who wanted to totally reorganize the two leagues and make a total mockery of Major League baseball got this compromise throughout the owners after the disastrous strike of the mid 90s. It should be noted that, rightfully, when he was owner of the Texas Rangers, George W. Bush was the only owner to vote against this scheme.
The "goal" was to create rivalries where none existed before.
Well, Mr Selig, you can not force what is not there. There is no natural rivalry between the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. They just happen to be in the same state and more or less an excuse for the retirees to see the teams in the cities that they left behind.
There have always been strong rivalries in baseball. The Dodgers-Giants. The Yankees-Red Sox, The Cubs-Cardinals, the list goes on.
This happened by events, not artificial attempts to line the pockets of out of touch owners who can care less about what real fans think and look to fairweather fans that have no aprecitation of the history and majesty of the game.
It is this atmosphere that may have led some of the great hitters of the game like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds to take steroids and the same Mr. Selig and company looked the other way until it became ridiculous to have 70 home run seasons become commonplace.
I love baseball and the Los Angeles Dodgers and I will still watch these interleague games because, unfortunately they do count.
Despite the attempts by cretins like Bud Selig and his cronies to ruin the greatest of American sports, because it is baseball that I still love the game and believe that this is just a dark era and that some sanity will eventually prevail. Hopefully that will be in my lifetime!
GOP Looking Up
The news for President Bush and the Republicans are beginning to look up, finally.
With taking out of the butcher Zarqawi, the president's visit to Iraq, the stock market soaring and gas prices beginning to stabilize, the trend is that those who lost favor with the President and the Republicans are coming back.
The poll numbers are going up and that may mean the Republican congress will move on immigration reform that starts with enforcement and will eventually lead to what Mr. Bush wants as far as guest workers. The not so surprising election of Brian Bilbray to the California congressional 50th district last week I believe is showing that this election does have the potential of going the other way-towards the Republicans, not the Democrats.
As I have written in earlier posts, there will be some troop withdrawls from Iraq by the end of the year. The situation in Iraq is going way up as the unity government is now complete. The Iraqi and coalition forces are sweeping Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle and cutting off the heads of the remnants of al-Queda in Iraq.
Also, because of these developments the price of crude oil will go down which will at least stabilize gas prices and infact prices will go down, probably below $2.50 nationwide and defiantly below $3 in California.
The doomsayers are getting the knifes out and trying to cut anything down that they could, but they are finding out that the public does know success when they see it and support those that have led success. Hence, that means support for Mr. Bush and the Republicans are on the rise and that means they will keep congress, maybe make marginal gains and even steal a couple of troubled governor's offices.
This is the Democrats worst nightmare-and that's good for Republicans!
With taking out of the butcher Zarqawi, the president's visit to Iraq, the stock market soaring and gas prices beginning to stabilize, the trend is that those who lost favor with the President and the Republicans are coming back.
The poll numbers are going up and that may mean the Republican congress will move on immigration reform that starts with enforcement and will eventually lead to what Mr. Bush wants as far as guest workers. The not so surprising election of Brian Bilbray to the California congressional 50th district last week I believe is showing that this election does have the potential of going the other way-towards the Republicans, not the Democrats.
As I have written in earlier posts, there will be some troop withdrawls from Iraq by the end of the year. The situation in Iraq is going way up as the unity government is now complete. The Iraqi and coalition forces are sweeping Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle and cutting off the heads of the remnants of al-Queda in Iraq.
Also, because of these developments the price of crude oil will go down which will at least stabilize gas prices and infact prices will go down, probably below $2.50 nationwide and defiantly below $3 in California.
The doomsayers are getting the knifes out and trying to cut anything down that they could, but they are finding out that the public does know success when they see it and support those that have led success. Hence, that means support for Mr. Bush and the Republicans are on the rise and that means they will keep congress, maybe make marginal gains and even steal a couple of troubled governor's offices.
This is the Democrats worst nightmare-and that's good for Republicans!
Political Poll
Go over to Hugh Hewitt's website (www.hughhewitt.com) and go to the link to take the "shortest political poll." It is a dew questions that determine where one stands politically from left to right and a little in between. It will not shock any one who reads this site where I fall!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Two Brave Leaders
Today is a day to remember in the long saga of the War Against Terror as President Bush went deep into the heart of the struggle, Baghdad Iraq, to meet with the new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet and others leaders to show support and to show those that have been armchair generals, sycophants and just plain against the struggle that he and the United States is in this for the long haul.
unfortunately, Mr. Bush's opponents, who dread these kind of days, have already called the visit to Iraq a political stunt and that there is no real change in the war situation.
But there is.
When Mr. Bush was in Baghdad, he was able to meet with a newly installed defense and interior minister that will lead the new government's offensive to further cut off the heads of those who continue terror and to bring stability and civilized government to a land long in need of both. The doomsayers said this day would not come. But Mr. al-Maliki proved them wrong and now has the strength of a unity government to reform the way that things are done.
Had Sen John F. Kerry been elected in 2004, this day would have not come because American troops would have been withdrawn and Iraq would have been in a full civil war and the butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could have easily been in charge of a great deal of the country if not Baghdad itself.
Brave leaders sometimes have to stand up to what is NOT popular and stand up for what is right and true.
What is right is the beginning of a democratic Iraq. It may not be perfect and maybe sometimes different.
Truth is that terrorists WILL be defeated and when they are, they will resort to desperation and lack any potential support that they may have had from any of the public.
It was great to see President Bush in Baghdad with Prime Minister al-Maliki and showing support. Like another brave leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and those who have stood in support of this theater of the War On Terror, this is what leadership is all about.
It is about being brave.
unfortunately, Mr. Bush's opponents, who dread these kind of days, have already called the visit to Iraq a political stunt and that there is no real change in the war situation.
But there is.
When Mr. Bush was in Baghdad, he was able to meet with a newly installed defense and interior minister that will lead the new government's offensive to further cut off the heads of those who continue terror and to bring stability and civilized government to a land long in need of both. The doomsayers said this day would not come. But Mr. al-Maliki proved them wrong and now has the strength of a unity government to reform the way that things are done.
Had Sen John F. Kerry been elected in 2004, this day would have not come because American troops would have been withdrawn and Iraq would have been in a full civil war and the butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could have easily been in charge of a great deal of the country if not Baghdad itself.
Brave leaders sometimes have to stand up to what is NOT popular and stand up for what is right and true.
What is right is the beginning of a democratic Iraq. It may not be perfect and maybe sometimes different.
Truth is that terrorists WILL be defeated and when they are, they will resort to desperation and lack any potential support that they may have had from any of the public.
It was great to see President Bush in Baghdad with Prime Minister al-Maliki and showing support. Like another brave leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and those who have stood in support of this theater of the War On Terror, this is what leadership is all about.
It is about being brave.
Back From Alaska
I am back after a two-week hiatus.
Actually, it was a fabulous almost two-week trip to Alaska, an amazing land and at this time of year almost always daylight the further north one goes.
I will write about that in later postings and that I do support drilling the ANWR.
More later.
Actually, it was a fabulous almost two-week trip to Alaska, an amazing land and at this time of year almost always daylight the further north one goes.
I will write about that in later postings and that I do support drilling the ANWR.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)