So What if Abortion Ends a Life

2 Comments

This entry is a slight departure from my focus on Discipleship Counseling within the church.

In 2007 my church at the time sent a group of us on a mission trip to Poland. As part of the trip we visited Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp. The Polish government has turned the site into a monument and museum that serves to remind mankind of man’s inhumanity to man. The camp is also A UNESCO World Heritage site.

Simply put; the Nazis decided who was fit to live and who was not. Auschwitz-Birkenau was one of the many consequence of their ideas and agenda.

As millions went to their deaths the Nazis confiscated everything of value. They extracted gold teeth, saved human hair for mattress stuffing and retained eye glasses for anything of use. Whole rooms of these items at Auschwitz-Birkenau testify to the extermination of millions of human beings and the saving that which was “useful” to the Nazi agenda.

Vernichtung der Juden in Polen durch die Nazis Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R69919,_KZ_Auschwitz,_Brillen.jpg  Zeugen des Massenmordes: ein Berg von Augengläsern in Oswiecim [Auschwitz]. Zentralbild

Vernichtung der Juden in Polen durch die Nazis Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R69919,_KZ_Auschwitz,_Brillen.jpg
Zeugen des Massenmordes: ein Berg von Augengläsern in Oswiecim [Auschwitz].
Zentralbild

Fast forward to 2015 and a series of videos that exposes Planned Parenthood for the death camp that it is. The videos clearly expose the harvesting of all that is “useful” to forward Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda.  Planned Parenthood harvests for profit the body parts of the unborn. The Nazis would be proud.

Most of the world stood by and watched the Holocaust unfold even though there was evidence of what the Nazis were up to.

Holocaust deniers, then and now turned a blind eye often distorting or denying outright the evidence.

So it is today in our country-a country  I love but am increasing ashamed of because of a calloused leadership and an electorate more interested in what they think they can get free than they are in human life-unless of course that life is a lion shot by a stupid big game hunter. What is wrong with us?

Josh Earnest the mouthpiece for President Obama called the videos fraudulent. President Obama himself ended a speech by asking God to bless the evil that Planned Parenthood is. They are holocaust deniers as are the majority of left-wingers in Congress and the mainstream media. At least now they cannot say “they didn’t know” like so many Nazis did after WW2.

Planned Parenthood attempts to take twisted moral high ground by saying the videos were heavily edited; yet unedited versions are readily available to anyone who has the stomach to watch. Planned Parenthood’s hypocrisy has no bounds as they seek to kill the unborn and harvest their “useful” parts.

Other left-wing politicians and media hacks have taken similar stances or ignored the videos entirely being in obvious self-serving denial.

Death with a smiley face

Death with a smiley face

The most honest headline I’ve seen comes from Salon.com. It read, “So What if Abortion ends a life.” You can read the whole disgusting article here if you have the stomach for it. Beware if you go the site. My virus protection warned me the site was unsafe. I’ll say.

So what if abortion ends a life has been the unstated response from the so-called progressives. It is precisely what they obviously believe but hate to admit.

Like the Nazis the so-called left-wing progressives have decided who should live and who should die and who should profit from the killing. Millions  of Americans keep voting for these fellow Americans who even a semblance of a conscience thus revealing their “so what” attitude toward the helpless.

The third damning video of Planned Parenthood can be seen here at LifeNews.com 

Sadly, there is little we can do about it given the evil conspiracy between the Obama administration and the mainstream media.

We can support pro-life candidates like Ben Carson,  Rand Paul and Ten Cruz who seek to defund Planned Parenthood. Let the evil pay for their evil out of their own pockets.

defundpp3

A Tepid Response when Outrage is Required.

Leave a comment

Tepid.

Dictionary.com defines “tepid” likes this:

adjective

  1. moderately warm; lukewarm: tepid water.
  2. characterized by a lack of force or enthusiasm: tepid prose; the critics’ tepid reception for the new play.

Tepid is a great word to describe President Obama’s response to the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem-a terrorist attack launched by who else, Hamas\Palestinians. The attack took place in a house of prayer and left a number of Rabbis with duo western\Israeli citizenship dead. An Israeli Druze policeman died a bit later after the shootout with the terrorists that also left the terrorists dead. Total Israeli dead numbered five.

It didn’t take long before we heard President Obama’s tepid response in which he repeated all the catch phrases that add up to the left’s idiotic moral equivalency arguments. Such as…

“The majority of the of the Palestinian people want peace.”

Obviously. That’s why they elected Hamas to their government and have a President overtly sympathetic to Hamas\Jihadis even as he issued his own tepid response to the attack that at the same time condemned it and justified it.

Obviously. That’s why Palestinians were dancing in the streets after the attack just as they did after 9\11.

Obviously.That’s why we heard numerous Muslim clerics deplore the attack and condemn the attackers. No, wait a minute, we didn’t hear any. Where are the so-called Muslim moderates? What is the definition of a Muslim moderate anyway? Is it a Jihadi who just stops short of cutting off people’s heads?

“We urge both sides to show restraint. Enough Palestinians and Israelis have died.”

There it is, the moral equivalency response. Terrorists attack defenseless Israeli citizens in a house of prayer and Israel which warns defenseless citizens of an impending attack should show restraint.

Never mind that Hamas hides its military assets among the civilian population in the hopes that Israel will kill civilians in their response. Hamas does this knowing full well that the western media will make much of the Israeli attacks and little of Hamas’ manipulation. The western media loves to make a victim out of the perpetrator. Hamas plays the western media like a fiddle.

It is noteworthy that Israel’s President Netanyahu called on western governments to express outrage. The fact he had to ask western governments to express outrage is because like Obama’s tepid remarks the tendency of the west is to likewise be tepid in their responses to Palestinian outrages.

The west with its bent toward political correctness and pacifism nominally fights ISIS in Iraq and Syria yet urges Israeli restraint in dealing with Hamas/Palestinians who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS. Go figure.

The Israeli government just relaxed the rules for Israelis to carry guns. That’s a response that makes sense. Perhaps if one of those hapless Rabbis had a gun the death toll would have been terrorists 2KIA and Israelis 0KIA or the attack would not have happened at all. Cowards do not like to face armed citizens. The defenseless make much easier targets for a coward. And the left wonders why we Second Amendment defenders like conceal and carry. Hamas and criminals is why.

One can only conclude from Obama’s tepid remarks that he sympathizes with Hamas and believes there is validity to their cause if not their methods.

Note to President Obama: Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and will not stop until that is achieved. And by the way, we’re next. At least two of those Rabbis were Americans.

The Great Charter

Leave a comment

The Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter to the Liberties of England, is a document originally issued in Latin in the year 1215. The Great Charter is truly great, because it was the first legal document to establish that leaders did not have arbitrary power, granted under Divine Authority, but instead were subject to the law of the land.

The feudal barons forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights. In a way, it was the world’s very first written Constitution. The charter was a major part of the process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world, an ideal which was eventually transported to the New World. It would inspire the Founding Fathers to draft a new document, the United States Constitution. constitutionfacts.com

The Great Charter or Magna Carta has been on my mind this week. I first learned of it back in grade school and then again in High School in my American Government class. I wonder if it’s still taught in the public school system. I doubt it.

Consider its significance.

For the first time the power of the king was limited by law. Although the power of the king had been challenged prior to the Great Charter the establishment of the Charter was the first successful attempt to get the king to submit to the will of the people as represented by the English feudal barons. The Great Charter protected their rights whereas previously the king could and did usurp rights and would claim that since he had a “divine right” to rule he could rule any which way he chose.

The best the people could hope for was a benevolent ruler as opposed to a power mad despot. What they got was usually something in-between. The Great Charter was the first step toward a government where by a ruler’s authority was limited by the governed.

As it says above the Great Charter was the world’s first written Constitution and it inspired the Founding Fathers of our own country to draft the US Constitution. It’s where we get the idea the even the President is limited by the rule of law and not immune from being prosecuted if he ignores it or breaks it.

In the past week we Americans who are paying attention have learned (or relearned at least one thing).

Our Imperial President will not be thwarted by an election that should curb his imperial ambitions.

The Imperial President has threatened, and we have no reason to doubt him, that he will by executive fiat change the law and push through his version of immigration reform without congressional approval or input.

The fact that he said numerous times on numerous occasions that he could not do what he is about to do illustrates the depth of his hypocrisy and disdain for the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The fact the Imperial President could have accomplished all his goals in the first two years of his first term when the Imperial President had control of both houses of Congress seems to escape the notice of the compliant media and American people. The observant will ask, why now?

My answer to that question is because he thinks he can get away with it. The Imperial President is first and foremost an ideologue who promised to reshape America and as Dinsesh D’Souza has said in order to reshape something you have to undo something else. That something is the United States Great Charter that we call the Constitution. Since the new Congress will hinder his efforts at reshaping America he seeks to reshape it now; never mind the consequences.

Observers, including some liberals who have not lost their minds have noted that when the Imperial President issues his edict it will lead to a Constitutional crisis not seen in our country for a great many years. Should the Imperial President triumph in the end it will set a precedent for executive action that the progressives may live to regret.

When Speaker of the House Boehner says Congress will fight the Imperial President “tooth and nail” let us hope that he means it and that the power of the Imperial President is curbed and curbed permanently lest government of the people, by the people  and for the people be lost among a tidal wave of executive orders issued by a anti-Constitution wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

Shariah and the goal of a Caliphate

Leave a comment

IMG_1204.JPG

The picture is of self-appointed Sharia police in Germany. They ran afoul of the German police as they attempted to enforce sharia law on Germans that were drinking.

This little incident came to mind last night after I heard the President’s speech regarding taking military action against ISIS.

The President is quite right to categorize ISIS as a terrorist organization and quite right to try to form a coalition of the willing to do something about it.

There was at least one thing missing from the President’s speech and that was the word, caliphate. The goal of ISIS is a caliphate, that is Islamic rule worldwide from a central caliphate not dissimilar to the old Ottoman Empire who were the last Islamists to try it.

What the President and his advisors do not seem to get is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. One way is military conquest like ISIS is capable of doing but the other way is more subtle.

The other way is to infiltrate western cultures and claim special rights  like enforcing sharia on Moslems and non-Moslems alike.  Then when busted claim victim status. racism and cultural insensitivity.

The subtle way is probably more effective in the long run especially because most of the west is naive about caliphate goals and frankly uber sensitive to anyone who claims victim status.

It has already been established that many ISIS fighters hold western passports and that should prove that within western nations there is a ready-made “fifth column” ready to take up the cause and methods of ISIS in those western nations. I would suggest that the sharia police are already on board philosophically with their more militant cousins and their goals are identical.

The war on Islamic fascism is bigger than you seem to think Mr. President.

Why Americans Should Thank King George I

1 Comment

There is an interesting article at Townhall.com by Michael Barone titled, Three Hundred Years Later Americans Owe a Debt to King George I.

To most Americans George I would be even more obscure than George III who was King of England during the War for Independence. Yet without a George I there would not have been a George III to turn the world upside down-the song the British Army played as they surrendered at Yorktown.

The Georges were Hanoverian Germans and they secured the British throne through the back door so-to-speak.

As Barone points out the previous monarch was a gal by the name of Queen Anne.

Back in those days government and religion were mixed together in an unsavory soup whereby loyalty to the state was often determined by one’s religion. The union of England, Scotland and Ireland had a rather tumultuous history where religion was a bigger deal than it is now.

Queen Anne was a Protestant, meaning Church of England-Anglican, but her dad King James II was Roman Catholic. James II was driven from the throne in 1688-89 in what was called the Glorious Revolution.

James got into trouble because he appointed fellow Catholics to high positions including the military. James decreed he could suspend Parliament and in particular the law that decreed that military officers had to be members of the Church of England. He also had not called for a Parliament for three years and abolished the colonial legislatures in the American colonies.

Looking back hundreds of years we see the issue through the lens of freedom of religion but at the time there was no such thing and such ideas were in the future.

What really bothered Parliament was the fact that the king believed he could ignore the law and do what he pleased. In other words it was a power struggle between those who made law (Parliament) and the head of state (king) who thought he could ignore it when he chose to do so. In those days the balance of power issues we are familiar with (Congress, President, Supreme Court) were still being worked out and Parliament which had gained the majority vote in the English Civil War was not keen on giving up their new-found power.

Cigarette Card featuring one of Oliver Cromwell's "Ironsides" Heave Cavalry that were instrumental in winning the the war for Parliament over Charles I and the Royalists.

Cigarette Card featuring one of Oliver Cromwell’s “Ironsides” Heavy Cavalry that were instrumental in winning the the war for Parliament over Charles I and the Royalists.

Parliament feared, rightly so, an absolutist type monarchy like that which was in power in France, a country that would eventually have an incredibly bloody revolution that ultimately would result in the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. James II was succeeded by Anne’s sister Mary who was married to William of Orange (both Protestants). William and Mary agreed with Parliament  that monarchs could not simply suspend the law and that’s where the Founding Fathers got the idea the President would have limited power (Remember that the Founding Fathers were all English and they knew their history.) As a footnote William and Mary College in Virginia is named for the famous pair and Thomas Jefferson attended there.

It get s little complicated but stay with me here; it’s important.

Parliament had passed a law in 1701 that barred Catholics and anyone married to a Catholic from being king. Remember, we’re looking back hundreds of years and there is no such thing a state without a state church (a practice that continues today in much of Europe but with far less importance).

The law perpetrated a crisis when Anne died because all her relatives in line for succession were Catholics. Just before Anne died she smelled revolution and fired her pro-Catholic advisers and picked a loyal Protestant who would ensure that succession would go to a Protestant. The Duke of Marlborough (an ancestor of Winston Churchill) would use the military to make sure there was little trouble. There was, but that’s another story.

Eventually the powers that were found a suitable Protestant, a distant cousin of Anne. His name was George Ludwig and a Hanoverian German. He could not speak a word of English.

According to Barone the Hanoverian kings (George I, II and III) were not all that popular and heavily criticized as we begin to see a more obvious freedom of the press and freedom of expression by British citizens. Barone also notes that overall the Hanoverian kings were good for the UK as it enjoyed an economic posterity that rivaled their greatest rival of France.

As for the colonies the George’s practiced a neglect that the colonies rather enjoyed. The colonies tended to rule themselves which they liked and things didn’t come to a head until George III became guilty of over reach but more importantly by refusing to negotiate with those he considered rebels-hence the War of Independence.

Barone does not make the following point but I will.

The US emerged from the War of Independence with strong ideas regarding the balance of power between the various branches of government. The Founders knew what they were doing fearing that an absolutist would once again suspend laws that he or she didn’t like. The Constitution was designed to keep all concerned in their proper place and although it could be messy and time-consuming it has worked pretty well until now.

Now we have a President who uses executive action and statutory neglect to full advantage. He does not enforce laws he does not like and goes around the lawmakers (Congress) every chance he gets. The Senate, one-half of the Congress is complicit in his designs and the other half of Congress (the House of Representatives) is blamed for the executive action run a muck because according to the President “Congress won’t act” yet it cannot because the President’s allies control the Senate.

This may all change in the November elections if both Houses of Congress go conservative and undo much of the damage. If not, we can expect more abuses of power from the Administration and it’s allies in the Senate and in the mainstream press who seem to think an abuse of power will never come back to bite them in the butt.

The US is still rather unique in the way it is set-up. Technically, we are ruled by a document called the Constitution, a document our leaders are supposed to uphold. When our leaders no longer take that seriously what is the Christian to do? The Bible says we are to be loyal to the emperor (1 Pe. 2:13) and every human institution (like our Constitution and civil authority in general). But what if they are in opposition to one another? What if the governors of 26 States uphold the Constitution and the other 24 side with a lawless President. What if Congress remains hopelessly divided and a President, like James II simply decides to do what he pleases? What if?

I do not have all the answers-just the principle that was established so long ago by William and Mary and the English Parliament. We are a nation of laws and the king or President just does not get to do whatever pleases. Limiting the power of the executive branch of government should be a concern to both Democrats and Republicans and the fact that it does appear to concern the Democrats one bit should concern us all.

 

 

 

 

Woodrow Wilson, America’s Great War President

1 Comment

One hundred years ago today World War One began. The President of the US in 1914 was Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was a committed Christian from a Presbyterian background. It was not a secret that his faith guided his politics.

Wilson’s best known for a couple of things.

First, he kept the US out of World War One for about 2 1/2 years.

Wilson was an idealist and a post-millennialist, meaning he believed that the church would usher in 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, a reign of peace. He thought of himself as an instrument toward that end. Wilson’s views coincided with the isolationist views of many Americans-Americans who wanted nothing to do with what they saw as European dynastic squabbles linked to the various empires.

Wilson probably would have succeeded in keeping the US out of the war indefinitely had it not been for two things.

The first was the German use of unrestricted submarine warfare. The British had blockaded Germany with their fleet and the Germans attempted to blockade Britain with their submarines thus denying Britain war material from the US. It also should be noted that while many Americans opposed the US getting involved in the war they did not mind profiting from the war. Not only that both Britain and France had effective propaganda machines at work in the US that made the most of painting the Germans as “Huns” the terror of Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries. As a result  most Americans were sympathetic to Britain and France and when the Germans sank civilian liners like the Lusitania the propaganda rang true.

The Lusitania was perhaps the most famous ship sunk by a submarine. It was primarily a passenger ship although it also was carrying war material when it was sunk by a German U-boat. A large number of Americans were on board and its sinking enraged the American public.

The Lusitania was perhaps the most famous ship sunk by a submarine. It was primarily a passenger ship although it also was carrying war material when it was sunk by a German U-boat. A large number of Americans were on board and its sinking enraged the American public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

For a time and because Germany really didn’t want war with the US they stopped unrestricted submarine warfare but  the Germans grew more desperate by 1917 and so they resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and that pushed Wilson toward war.

To add fuel to the fire the Germans attempted to make an alliance with Mexico assuming the Mexicans wanted to regain what was lost in the Mexican-American War of 1847-48. The proposal was uncovered in the famous Zimmerman telegram and although Mexico refused the offer it was enough to push the US into the war in April, 1917.

A translated copy of the Zimmerman telegram that appeared in the Washington Post. http://spotlights.fold3.com/2012/07/02/zimmermann-telegram/

A translated copy of the Zimmerman telegram that appeared in the Washington Post. http://spotlights.fold3.com/2012/07/02/zimmermann-telegram/

Wilson did not give up on his peaceful ideals and after the war ended it was Wilson who proposed the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN.

Like today’s UN the League was supposed to be a peaceful way for countries to settle their disputes and like the UN it failed miserably.

Ironically, Wilson could not get Congress to support the League and it caused him much embarrassment.

The question that should be asked by a thinking person of faith, is why do noble efforts at peace that include ideas like the League of Nations and the UN fail?

The reader of the Scriptures knows the answer. At the root of these failures at peace is sin-sin that is ingrained into human nature. We have only to look around the world today to see that it is true. Whether its massive struggles such as World War One and Two or smaller conflicts ever since, the root is human nature and it’s desire to exert control or gain advantage over another. Jesus predicted in Matthew 24 that there would wars and rumors of wars until he returns so we ought not be all that surprised to see so much conflict going on around the world.

Wilson’s post-millennialism led him to believe that eventually the church (meaning genuine believers) would eventually convert enough people to Christ and that in turn would usher in Christ’s second coming and reign on earth. He saw himself as an instrument toward that eventual end. He died without seeing any progress toward those goals.

Although by today’s definition Wilson would be considered a progressive or a liberal but unlike many today he at least had the courage of his convictions born out of a deep faith. I simply believe he read the prophetic texts of Scripture wrong.

Christian History article on Woodrow Wilson’s faith.

Moral Equivalency-Hamas vs Israel

Leave a comment

There is a great column by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com titled, The Jewish State in a Morally Sick World.

In the article Prager discusses the concept of moral equivalency as it relates to the ongoing struggles between Israel and Hamas as well as the Islamic States that support Hamas.

The definition of moral equivalency from rationalwiki.org is: Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

Prager makes the argument that the moral gulf between Israel and Hamas is as great as the moral gulf between the Western Allies in WW2 and the Nazis. Prager continues to make his point by noting that hundreds\thousands of British were killed in the blitz and thousands\hundreds of thousands were killed in Germany by the RAF and USAF later in the war.

Prager notes and accurately I think that if all you do is look at the casualty rate you have some sort of moral equivalency that makes the western allies as bad as the Nazis. And this is the kind of illogical fallacy that many in the west commit when they compare Israel to Hamas.  The argument goes something like this. If Hamas kills three and the Israeli’s kill 30 in response, then Israel has not shown restraint and is immoral for doing so. Hamas on the other hand gets a pass because they hide among their civilians and look like the victims to the western media.

Hamas uses the western media to focus on the Palestinian\Hamas casualty rate versus the casualty rate of the Israelis to make a moral equivalency argument; or better put, to paint themselves as the victims of Israeli aggression as it they had nothing to do with the Israeli reaction to their incessant missile attacks and pledge to kill all Jews.

Hamas deliberately puts their own people in harm’s way to make the sympathy point and many in the western world fall for it and urge Israel to show restraint and/or just surrender to the acts of terror.

Below is Israel’s PM Netanyahu speaking to western ambassadors pleading with them to take a moral stand against Hamas. Netanyahu is quite right when he says that if the west lets this go the west will be next. The jihadis use our own morality against us while they have little of their own.

Older Entries