Another song of “liberty”
Raised its voice today
Lifting high its banner
It bids us, “Come, this way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Yet in this song of “liberty”
There’s no mention of Freedom’s Rights
Its only words are “Take it!
You want it! Use force! Use might!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
In Freedom’s words – though fleeting –
Are history’s greatest themes
Though history’s taken a beating
And there is no “wrong” in “right”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
Another song of “liberty”
Raised up its voice today.
Some heard a Marxist echo
Some heard, “I’ve got my way!”
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
How much of Freedom’s TRUTH
Will we allow to disappear
Before we – courage righted –
Stand up in face of fear?
And some will choose to follow,
And some will choose sitting still
And some will go to battle
To die.. or to kill.
© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Freedom Does Not Trump GOD
I have recently been involved in a discussion about “freedom” and what it includes. It didn’t start out that way, it just went that way due to the main sticking point my “opponent” was trying to create against my stance. My opponent was defending his support of homosexual marriage. In his efforts to do so, he tried to assert that, “maybe allowing people to practice homosexuality [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] even though some believe it is sin is a more conservative use of government.”
He went on to say, quote: “Therefore, as I look at the upcoming election and evaluate how I want to vote there is one thing in particular that I hold as an irrefutable value: Freedom may not be free, but it is always worth the price. Even if that price means other people are allowed to do things I think are stupid (like smoke cigarettes). Even if that means other countries are allowed to do things we think are stupid (like have nuclear weapons [even if we only think it’s stupid when they want them]). While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.” Unquote.
His stance in support of homosexual marriage is unique if nothing else. Standing against laws that allow homosexual marriage is less government and therefore something Conservatives should support. Never thought of it that way before. Putting the number of laws on the books ahead of right and wrong is novel to say the least. But more about this later.
I argued against his idea and was astonished at the persistence in my opponent’s defense of such a stance. Smaller government = more freedom = homosexual marriage should be allowed purely on the basis of smaller government, therefore Conservatives should support it! Well, there’s a problem with that line of thinking.
A few for instances: I live on a corner lot. When we first moved into our house the yard was unfenced. Our boys were small and we put the boundary on them that they could not go into the street. The street was not safe for them. We loved them so we set that boundary. Sometimes they pushed the boundary and went into the street, for which they got reprimanded (sometimes a swat on their bottoms), and that helped teach them to stay out of the street.
If we love someone we put boundaries up to protect them. Some of those boundaries are physical, some we set up are spiritual, some emotional. If love includes boundaries then not all boundaries are bad. A boundary that keeps people from walking on the “third rail” of an electric train is going to keep a person alive is a good boundary. The same thing is true with emotional boundaries: don’t give your heart to a married man because it’s going to cause someone to get hurt (the wife, the mistress, the children of the married man, etc.). Don’t get involved in drugs, voodoo, etc., are examples of things that a majority of people think of as “good boundaries” parents set for their children.
Freedom comes from GOD (the Declaration of Independence confirms this) and, even though we are free, with freedom comes certain responsibilities. As Rick Santorum so astutely pointed out at a Lexington, SC, restaurant (the “Flight Deck”)recently,“[W]e were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.” Mr. Santorum’s excellent reminder for folks is that just because you have freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that doesn’t mean that there is a “free for all” and we can run, helter-skelter, to do whatever we wish, whenever we wish, with/to whomever we wish, however we wish.
With freedom – which the Declaration itself states comes from GOD – comes the boundaries GOD believes in and tried to teach us via His relationship with His people (Israel), via His Son, Jesus Christ and via His Word, the Holy Bible. Does that mean that America should be a Baptist country (Baptist is a for instance, it could be Greek Orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran)? No. It means that if we are going to tout our freedoms that come from GOD as our Founding Fathers reiterated in their writings, the Congressional record (read the earliest Congressional records and you’ll be amazed at how often GOD and His providential guidance are referenced), and elsewhere, then we also must act as though our freedoms come from a moral, loving, wise, Creator who knows us better than we know ourselves.
Freedom means we have the personal rights that come from being intelligent enough to act as though we know right from wrong, good from bad and moral from immoral. We have the right to feel whatever we feel (even feeling homosexual), but we do not have the right to engage in “marriage” (per se) because marriage is a conscript from GOD. He established it and it was He who decided – via establishing Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (cliché but true) – what a marriage was going to be. It is in Genesis Chapter 2:24, that marriage is established as, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” One flesh: one person: one child or children (one flesh) from two people. That is not possible with homosexuality.
When GOD created marriage He created what He wanted us to live. He gave us the rules regarding homosexuality:
• Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• I Timothy 1:10 (read the first portion of that in 1:9: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,”): “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”
• I Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”
Remember that GOD gave us freedom, but that also means that we must include within that freedom what GOD says is freedom: living by the rules He set down. Otherwise, the law is made for those who are “lawless and disobedient”.
Now I’ll return to the previous paragraph that talked about the number of laws on the books being a reason to not outlaw homosexual marriage: the “too many laws” thing.
Until 1993 it was not even considered a possibility for homosexuals to marry. Not that there were any laws on the books against it, just because the homosexuals who had tried and been refused had decided not to make a fuss about it. There were no laws preventing homosexual marriage in effect in any of our fifty states (fifty-seven in obamination’s America) until 1995. When they started pushing for the “right to marry”, that’s when man’s traditional views on marriage were tested and new laws created. Thus, the biblical reminder that “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…”. We cannot fight GOD. If we do, we lose. The laws that are now being created against homosexual marriage are just the laws of GOD coming into effect. So the number of laws on the books is inconsequential in regards to this. (If we can write laws mandating punishment for feelings -- “Hate Crimes” -- then we can have laws based on actions.)
America, as a Christian nation (founded by Christians, GOD mentioned throughout our founding documents, in our earliest Congressional records, prayer being established at our first Congressional meeting and practiced within our Congressional meetings as the starting point of every meeting and effort of Congress’s guiding America, etc., etc., etc. [and like it or not]), is based upon GOD’s Word. We looked for His guidance. We looked for His Providential protection. We looked for – and a majority of us still look for – His truth.
Now, are we as a nation so far from GOD that we will turn our backs on Him for the convenience, the emotions of, the “freedoms” of a very few people who have started down the road toward perdition? Should we not, instead of allowing this and stepping aside to let the slide continue, love homosexuals enough to stand up and say, “No. This far and no further!”? If we, as Christians and a Christian nation, should love our neighbor enough to try to bring them to Christ (GOD’s command in the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28), should we at the same time hate them enough to support them wallowing in and spreading their sin, adopting and raising children in the belief that it is acceptable? What GOD calls an “abomination” we should support in order to prevent there being another law on the books?
Is that what my opponent thinks GOD would condone? Is His Love going to be considered so all-encompassing that He will be seen as accepting every sin instead of just every sinner? GOD judges our actions as well as our hearts. If we are to emulate Jesus Christ, we must stand up for what GOD says is right. In Matthew 21:12 we see Jesus Christ take action against what was considered wrong by GOD. In 15:6) we see the Pharisees using the same idea as my opponent is espousing, “Jesus replied, ‘And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?’” Jesus then went on to call the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” and “blind guides” for doing so! Read Matthew 23 and you’ll see what happens when Jesus sees people who are giving lip service to right, while all the while doing wrong.
Is that what my opponent wants? Should we give lip service to “freedom” so that we can leave man enslaved to sin while touting "fewer laws"? Should we give lip service to GOD’s LOVE while all the while condemning homosexuals to damnation because of their sin? If we are to do nothing contrary to the desires of those in sin because we want to demonstrate our love of the sinner, then are we not enabling the sin? Is that what GOD wants? Is that what Jesus demonstrated with His own actions? If Christ were to do so, the money changers’ tables would never have been overturned and the practice would have continued. If Christ were to do so the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” would never have been called out in Matthew 23. Instead Jesus would have simply loved them into the Kingdom of GOD, and not have called them a “brood of vipers” (vs. 33).
If you see a junkie on the street who says, “Give me ten dollars so I can go get some more meth, man. I’m dying here, man, I need more meth.” Do you give the junkie the money? If you do not, will he like you? If not, will he think you love him? If not, will he be angry at you? If you do not give the junkie money to get more meth, you are demonstrating love. If you do not condone sin, you are demonstrating love.
The bottom line for me is that GOD set boundaries for us when He gave us freedom. Look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There was one rule: “Don’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Genesis 2:17). Only one rule to live by: now that’s freedom! When Eve and Adam (in that order) broke that one rule there was a price to pay. Adam worked for a living, Eve bore children in pain, the serpent crawled on his belly and there was enmity between the serpent and man, and Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden. A preventive measure was also taken in that GOD set a guard at the Tree of Life, just in case (Genesis 3:24).
If we are to be Christ-like and try to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), then should we not also emulate Christ and His Father and their love of the sinner as much as we can? Remember, loving the sinner is not loving their sin. If it were, there would be no condemnation at all, nor would there have been reason to punish Adam and Eve and no reason for a Redeemer.
He went on to say, quote: “Therefore, as I look at the upcoming election and evaluate how I want to vote there is one thing in particular that I hold as an irrefutable value: Freedom may not be free, but it is always worth the price. Even if that price means other people are allowed to do things I think are stupid (like smoke cigarettes). Even if that means other countries are allowed to do things we think are stupid (like have nuclear weapons [even if we only think it’s stupid when they want them]). While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.” Unquote.
His stance in support of homosexual marriage is unique if nothing else. Standing against laws that allow homosexual marriage is less government and therefore something Conservatives should support. Never thought of it that way before. Putting the number of laws on the books ahead of right and wrong is novel to say the least. But more about this later.
I argued against his idea and was astonished at the persistence in my opponent’s defense of such a stance. Smaller government = more freedom = homosexual marriage should be allowed purely on the basis of smaller government, therefore Conservatives should support it! Well, there’s a problem with that line of thinking.
A few for instances: I live on a corner lot. When we first moved into our house the yard was unfenced. Our boys were small and we put the boundary on them that they could not go into the street. The street was not safe for them. We loved them so we set that boundary. Sometimes they pushed the boundary and went into the street, for which they got reprimanded (sometimes a swat on their bottoms), and that helped teach them to stay out of the street.
If we love someone we put boundaries up to protect them. Some of those boundaries are physical, some we set up are spiritual, some emotional. If love includes boundaries then not all boundaries are bad. A boundary that keeps people from walking on the “third rail” of an electric train is going to keep a person alive is a good boundary. The same thing is true with emotional boundaries: don’t give your heart to a married man because it’s going to cause someone to get hurt (the wife, the mistress, the children of the married man, etc.). Don’t get involved in drugs, voodoo, etc., are examples of things that a majority of people think of as “good boundaries” parents set for their children.
Freedom comes from GOD (the Declaration of Independence confirms this) and, even though we are free, with freedom comes certain responsibilities. As Rick Santorum so astutely pointed out at a Lexington, SC, restaurant (the “Flight Deck”)recently,“[W]e were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.” Mr. Santorum’s excellent reminder for folks is that just because you have freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that doesn’t mean that there is a “free for all” and we can run, helter-skelter, to do whatever we wish, whenever we wish, with/to whomever we wish, however we wish.
With freedom – which the Declaration itself states comes from GOD – comes the boundaries GOD believes in and tried to teach us via His relationship with His people (Israel), via His Son, Jesus Christ and via His Word, the Holy Bible. Does that mean that America should be a Baptist country (Baptist is a for instance, it could be Greek Orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran)? No. It means that if we are going to tout our freedoms that come from GOD as our Founding Fathers reiterated in their writings, the Congressional record (read the earliest Congressional records and you’ll be amazed at how often GOD and His providential guidance are referenced), and elsewhere, then we also must act as though our freedoms come from a moral, loving, wise, Creator who knows us better than we know ourselves.
Freedom means we have the personal rights that come from being intelligent enough to act as though we know right from wrong, good from bad and moral from immoral. We have the right to feel whatever we feel (even feeling homosexual), but we do not have the right to engage in “marriage” (per se) because marriage is a conscript from GOD. He established it and it was He who decided – via establishing Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (cliché but true) – what a marriage was going to be. It is in Genesis Chapter 2:24, that marriage is established as, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” One flesh: one person: one child or children (one flesh) from two people. That is not possible with homosexuality.
When GOD created marriage He created what He wanted us to live. He gave us the rules regarding homosexuality:
• Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• I Timothy 1:10 (read the first portion of that in 1:9: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,”): “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”
• I Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”
Remember that GOD gave us freedom, but that also means that we must include within that freedom what GOD says is freedom: living by the rules He set down. Otherwise, the law is made for those who are “lawless and disobedient”.
Now I’ll return to the previous paragraph that talked about the number of laws on the books being a reason to not outlaw homosexual marriage: the “too many laws” thing.
Until 1993 it was not even considered a possibility for homosexuals to marry. Not that there were any laws on the books against it, just because the homosexuals who had tried and been refused had decided not to make a fuss about it. There were no laws preventing homosexual marriage in effect in any of our fifty states (fifty-seven in obamination’s America) until 1995. When they started pushing for the “right to marry”, that’s when man’s traditional views on marriage were tested and new laws created. Thus, the biblical reminder that “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…”. We cannot fight GOD. If we do, we lose. The laws that are now being created against homosexual marriage are just the laws of GOD coming into effect. So the number of laws on the books is inconsequential in regards to this. (If we can write laws mandating punishment for feelings -- “Hate Crimes” -- then we can have laws based on actions.)
America, as a Christian nation (founded by Christians, GOD mentioned throughout our founding documents, in our earliest Congressional records, prayer being established at our first Congressional meeting and practiced within our Congressional meetings as the starting point of every meeting and effort of Congress’s guiding America, etc., etc., etc. [and like it or not]), is based upon GOD’s Word. We looked for His guidance. We looked for His Providential protection. We looked for – and a majority of us still look for – His truth.
Now, are we as a nation so far from GOD that we will turn our backs on Him for the convenience, the emotions of, the “freedoms” of a very few people who have started down the road toward perdition? Should we not, instead of allowing this and stepping aside to let the slide continue, love homosexuals enough to stand up and say, “No. This far and no further!”? If we, as Christians and a Christian nation, should love our neighbor enough to try to bring them to Christ (GOD’s command in the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28), should we at the same time hate them enough to support them wallowing in and spreading their sin, adopting and raising children in the belief that it is acceptable? What GOD calls an “abomination” we should support in order to prevent there being another law on the books?
Is that what my opponent thinks GOD would condone? Is His Love going to be considered so all-encompassing that He will be seen as accepting every sin instead of just every sinner? GOD judges our actions as well as our hearts. If we are to emulate Jesus Christ, we must stand up for what GOD says is right. In Matthew 21:12 we see Jesus Christ take action against what was considered wrong by GOD. In 15:6) we see the Pharisees using the same idea as my opponent is espousing, “Jesus replied, ‘And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?’” Jesus then went on to call the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” and “blind guides” for doing so! Read Matthew 23 and you’ll see what happens when Jesus sees people who are giving lip service to right, while all the while doing wrong.
Is that what my opponent wants? Should we give lip service to “freedom” so that we can leave man enslaved to sin while touting "fewer laws"? Should we give lip service to GOD’s LOVE while all the while condemning homosexuals to damnation because of their sin? If we are to do nothing contrary to the desires of those in sin because we want to demonstrate our love of the sinner, then are we not enabling the sin? Is that what GOD wants? Is that what Jesus demonstrated with His own actions? If Christ were to do so, the money changers’ tables would never have been overturned and the practice would have continued. If Christ were to do so the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” would never have been called out in Matthew 23. Instead Jesus would have simply loved them into the Kingdom of GOD, and not have called them a “brood of vipers” (vs. 33).
If you see a junkie on the street who says, “Give me ten dollars so I can go get some more meth, man. I’m dying here, man, I need more meth.” Do you give the junkie the money? If you do not, will he like you? If not, will he think you love him? If not, will he be angry at you? If you do not give the junkie money to get more meth, you are demonstrating love. If you do not condone sin, you are demonstrating love.
The bottom line for me is that GOD set boundaries for us when He gave us freedom. Look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There was one rule: “Don’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Genesis 2:17). Only one rule to live by: now that’s freedom! When Eve and Adam (in that order) broke that one rule there was a price to pay. Adam worked for a living, Eve bore children in pain, the serpent crawled on his belly and there was enmity between the serpent and man, and Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden. A preventive measure was also taken in that GOD set a guard at the Tree of Life, just in case (Genesis 3:24).
If we are to be Christ-like and try to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), then should we not also emulate Christ and His Father and their love of the sinner as much as we can? Remember, loving the sinner is not loving their sin. If it were, there would be no condemnation at all, nor would there have been reason to punish Adam and Eve and no reason for a Redeemer.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
A Christmas Tribute to Our Troops
Christmas Tree Boots
© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Filled with dirt,
Frozen through,
It started there,
In WW two.
Tradition: it starts somewhere.
A friend had died,
Though not alone,
And given up
His boots to Jones.
Christmas: it started there.
Rhoades took the boots
And dug the dirt,
And carried it
Wrapped in his shirt.
Stacking: starting with Jones’.
And from there
It all began,
Tradition passed
From Man to Man.
Trees: from shoes one owns.
In the circle,
Toes pointing out,
Recall the names
That it’s about.
Filling: support to give.
Ten to eight,
Eight to six,
Six to four,
Soon it’s fixed.
Single: from one who lives.
A soldier’s boot
Now stands tall
For Christmas-time
Has come to all.
Tree: dirt-filled soldiers’ boots.
In frozen snow,
Or sandy desert,
It helps to ease
A soldier’s hurt
Normalcy: our own roots.
When next you see
A soldier brave
Remember thank them,
Salute their grave.
Freedom: won day by day.
Even on Christmas
They gave their all,
Served our country,
Answered the call.
Sacrifice: the price they pay.
Imagine now
The soldiers’ boots,
Stacked up tall,
First owners mute.
Blood: red and green contrast.
© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Filled with dirt,
Frozen through,
It started there,
In WW two.
Tradition: it starts somewhere.
A friend had died,
Though not alone,
And given up
His boots to Jones.
Christmas: it started there.
Rhoades took the boots
And dug the dirt,
And carried it
Wrapped in his shirt.
Stacking: starting with Jones’.
And from there
It all began,
Tradition passed
From Man to Man.
Trees: from shoes one owns.
In the circle,
Toes pointing out,
Recall the names
That it’s about.
Filling: support to give.
Ten to eight,
Eight to six,
Six to four,
Soon it’s fixed.
Single: from one who lives.
A soldier’s boot
Now stands tall
For Christmas-time
Has come to all.
Tree: dirt-filled soldiers’ boots.
In frozen snow,
Or sandy desert,
It helps to ease
A soldier’s hurt
Normalcy: our own roots.
When next you see
A soldier brave
Remember thank them,
Salute their grave.
Freedom: won day by day.
Even on Christmas
They gave their all,
Served our country,
Answered the call.
Sacrifice: the price they pay.
Imagine now
The soldiers’ boots,
Stacked up tall,
First owners mute.
Blood: red and green contrast.
Monday, December 19, 2011
American Community Survey: AN UPDATE
The doorbell rang about thirty minutes ago. My hubby went to find out what the man at the door wanted. Turns out he worked for the Census Bureau. The guy asked if we had received the ACS and hubby said that we had. Hubby told the Census worker why we had not returned the questionnaire: too invasive. Hubby also asked the Census worker if the Census worker had ever read the questions and the answer was no. The Census worker had a computer that showed how many times they had called us and all of that information. Census worker said that if you don't want to answer the questions you don't have to all they needed was our name.
Excuse me?! What about the written threat that is printed ON the ACS that it is required by law that we respond? What happened to that? Back in 1962, a guy named Rickenbacker was convicted of not answering the questions. But nowadays, with the Tea Party and people becoming more aware of the liberties they have been losing over the last forty years, people have started standing up to the government and refusing to cooperate with the government's invasion of our privacy, property rights and religious freedoms. In other words, the people learning their rights and the U.S. Constitution is doing the people some good! That frightens the government.
I also think that it's very telling that the Census worker told hubby that he's also working a government survey that asks the citizens how much they spend on groceries!! Can you imagine the government actually needing that information? I won't respond to that one, either!
I'll let you know if there is any further action taken by the Census Bureau. I don't trust them.
Excuse me?! What about the written threat that is printed ON the ACS that it is required by law that we respond? What happened to that? Back in 1962, a guy named Rickenbacker was convicted of not answering the questions. But nowadays, with the Tea Party and people becoming more aware of the liberties they have been losing over the last forty years, people have started standing up to the government and refusing to cooperate with the government's invasion of our privacy, property rights and religious freedoms. In other words, the people learning their rights and the U.S. Constitution is doing the people some good! That frightens the government.
I also think that it's very telling that the Census worker told hubby that he's also working a government survey that asks the citizens how much they spend on groceries!! Can you imagine the government actually needing that information? I won't respond to that one, either!
I'll let you know if there is any further action taken by the Census Bureau. I don't trust them.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Biblically Speaking, Women CAN Be President!
During the John “Reach Across the Aisle” McCain/Sarah Palin candidacy I heard many reasons why people would not vote for the ticket, but mainly would not vote for her. Some didn’t like the fact that she was so sure of herself (lame excuse). Some didn’t like the fact that she was so Conservative (lame). Some didn’t like the fact that she was “inexperienced” (want “inexperienced” look at who is president now). But of all the lame excuses I heard – on election night, no less – was when my friend told me that he – or some men he knew – could not make themselves vote for McCain/Palin because of the Bible.
Excuse me?
The Bible, they said. The Bible!
What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.
In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.
“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.
The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.
Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:
4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”
Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.
Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.
Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.
Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.
Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).
In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.
Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).
In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.
Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.
When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!
Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.
As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.
The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.
Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!
(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.
Excuse me?
The Bible, they said. The Bible!
What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.
In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.
“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.
The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.
Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:
4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”
Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.
Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.
Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.
Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.
Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).
In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.
Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).
In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.
Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.
When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!
Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.
As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.
The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.
Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!
(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Why obamination Is NOT Impeached
A friend of mine sent me an e-mail that supports my Birther-ism. I know obamination is ineligible, the e-mail just proved it again. When responding I chose to look into a few things that would result from proof that obamination is an illegal president.
• Executive orders he has signed: nullified.
• Laws an ineligible president signed: negated.
• Appointments of federal judges: unseated; rulings nullified; cases retried.
• Lawsuits the administration filed against the states : over ballot issues, over illegal immigration, and more issues resulting in more law suits the administration has filed: dismissed.
• Czars he has appointed: fired.
• Jobs within the bureaucracy: gone!
• International treaties signed: unenforceable.
• Vacations he and his family have taken: must be reimbursed.
• Presidential salary and pension plan: reimbursed and revoked.
• He would, of course be jailed.
• Thousands of voter fraud cases investigated and prosecuted.
• Staff of ms obamination: fired.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.
The thing will be a holy terror to straighten out. Unemployment numbers would skyrocket.
This is the biggest reason the administration thinks the House and Senate cannot do anything. The administration can't imagine the House and Senate dealing with the implications and ramifications. And, in actuality, it's the truth. It's fear freezing feet when it should be right making righteous indignation act and strength against weakness making them bold. Too bad our House and Senate are men with "feet of clay" (Daniel 2:33).
Oh! I forgot one thing:
• Status within the Dem./Wrongie party: GOD! For pulling the biggest fraud in history on the American people.
• Executive orders he has signed: nullified.
• Laws an ineligible president signed: negated.
• Appointments of federal judges: unseated; rulings nullified; cases retried.
• Lawsuits the administration filed against the states : over ballot issues, over illegal immigration, and more issues resulting in more law suits the administration has filed: dismissed.
• Czars he has appointed: fired.
• Jobs within the bureaucracy: gone!
• International treaties signed: unenforceable.
• Vacations he and his family have taken: must be reimbursed.
• Presidential salary and pension plan: reimbursed and revoked.
• He would, of course be jailed.
• Thousands of voter fraud cases investigated and prosecuted.
• Staff of ms obamination: fired.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.
The thing will be a holy terror to straighten out. Unemployment numbers would skyrocket.
This is the biggest reason the administration thinks the House and Senate cannot do anything. The administration can't imagine the House and Senate dealing with the implications and ramifications. And, in actuality, it's the truth. It's fear freezing feet when it should be right making righteous indignation act and strength against weakness making them bold. Too bad our House and Senate are men with "feet of clay" (Daniel 2:33).
Oh! I forgot one thing:
• Status within the Dem./Wrongie party: GOD! For pulling the biggest fraud in history on the American people.
Friday, December 2, 2011
It’s Xmas in the Red House
The obaminations have decorated the Red House(used to be White until Commies moved in) with their vision of Xmas. Thirty-seven trees decked out with what they think is appropriate for Xmas decorations, garlands draped over everything horizontal, Bo idols strategically placed.
One tree has Bo all over it. One has more traditional ornaments. One has Purple Hearts, military medals, etc. One has … Wait. What? Purple Hearts? Purple hearts as in papier-mâché, painted glass, or something like that? No. As in the medal, Purple Heart, given to those members of the military who “are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.” Notice it doesn’t mention hanging on a tree? Check the website. Notice it doesn’t say that it’s appropriate to use as a Xmas decoration? Notice it doesn’t say that it can be used helter-skelter, willy-nilly however anyone wishes? It states that it is to be awarded to those who “are wounded by an instrument of war”. When did that tree get “wounded by an instrument of war”? If the tree did not fight and get wounded, it should not be decorated with a Purple Heart, much less with multiple Purple Hearts.
For the obaminations to use a Purple Heart, the military medal, as a decoration for their Xmas tree is not just wrong, it’s a slap in the face of all Purple Heart honorees worldwide. That tree could have been just as much of a tribute to our military men and women without denigrating one of the most revered awards the military has. For obaminations to use a Purple Heart as a tree decoration says to those who have been awarded it that their valor, their sacrifice, their heroism is just as valuable to the obaminations – and because it’s in the “People’s House”, the (used to be White now-) Red House – and that the nation as a whole, that their sacrifice is cheap, like a souvenir we bought while in Aruba, Alaska, or Madrid. The nation as a whole is now attributed to the denigration of the Purple Heart, to slapping the honorees in the face and making their Purple Heart worth as much as a glass ornament, a popcorn string, or paper chain.
That’s just wrong and I, for one, resent the obaminations denigrating the Purple Heart’s vaunted place in the lexicon of military history and honor. From now on, every Purple Heart honoree will be so proud to know that the award is so special that it also hung on a Xmas tree. Won’t that make the medal on his/her chest even more revered?
Then there’s the whole thing about the Xmas decorations being a witness to the obaminations’ extravagance in times of want. They put up thirty-seven trees, decked every horizontal surface, had a different decoration for every tree, and a different designer for each room, a whole slew of folks in there to volunteer to help with the decorations. Question: did those volunteers get time with the obaminations? (How valuable is the ear of the president even if he’s an ACORNed president?) Did they get fed at taxpayer expense? Did the decorations get purchased by the taxpayers? Did the trees get donated or were they purchased by the taxpayers? How about all those decorations? Were they donated? The lights and the electricity they use, were/are they donated?
In years past previous presidents reused some of the ornaments of past Christmases, or decorated their own tree (and here near the bottom of the page). Yes, Laura Bush had more trees (“nearly fifty”), than the current family, but when reusing ornaments, it’s cheaper to do so. The current “first” family seems to think that they are royalty and that we, the taxpayers, should pay for their every whim, no matter how difficult it is for us to pay our own bills, feed our own family, keep our own house!
Then there’s the whole idea of Christmas and where it is represented in their decorations. Obamination has long said he’s a Christian (well, at least since it became convenient and he had to hide his hatred of America and his Islamism). Anyone see a nativity? Anyone see a manger? Anyone see Christ? See an angel even as a tree topper? I see stars, but they’re the “regular” stars, not one that is considered the traditional representation of the Northern Star that led the Wise Men to Jesus in the manger. Anyone see anything even remotely resembling a Christian symbol at all? I see Bo, the family’s dog. I do not see Jesus. I do not see a Nativity scene. I wonder what kind of Christian celebrates Christmas – Xmas in this case – without a Nativity? To me, that is what Christmas is all about. No Christ, no Christmas. Where is the Christ in their Christmas? Thus, the “Xmas” designation is more appropriate for the obaminations’ décor.
The Bo thing gets to me, too. I see a tree there that has Bo all over it. I see Bo in almost every room: on tables, in marzipan in front of the gingerbread White House, and in buttons, hanging by his neck on a tree (in the bottom video). Yes, they love the family pet. If they wish to celebrate this way, why not change the name of their celebration to “Bo-mas”? After all, that seems to be who they are celebrating instead of Christ. Having that many Bo-icons (pronounced Bow-ih-cons) as the focus of the decorations seems to indicate what is most important in the family’s celebration of the season. So they are having “Bo-mas” instead of a Christmas, are they not? After all, Christ can’t be mentioned unless He’s convenient and necessary for the hiding of the truth. This assertion is proven every time obamination drops the name of Jesus. It’s only there to hide the truth, to distort the facts, to be a convenient touch point. Obamination’s actions speak louder than his words even in his un-Christmas decorations.
In my family – and I would venture to guess, in yours – when Christmas comes around there is a Nativity scene, as well as a few Holy Family representations around. There are ornaments that remind us, as well as traditions that remind us, about what Christmas is all about. We read the story of Christ’s birth in Luke every Christmas Eve, and we remember Him on Christmas day with thanksgiving, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”. Anyone see a Christian Bible in those pictures? I don't. What does that tell you?
One tree has Bo all over it. One has more traditional ornaments. One has Purple Hearts, military medals, etc. One has … Wait. What? Purple Hearts? Purple hearts as in papier-mâché, painted glass, or something like that? No. As in the medal, Purple Heart, given to those members of the military who “are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.” Notice it doesn’t mention hanging on a tree? Check the website. Notice it doesn’t say that it’s appropriate to use as a Xmas decoration? Notice it doesn’t say that it can be used helter-skelter, willy-nilly however anyone wishes? It states that it is to be awarded to those who “are wounded by an instrument of war”. When did that tree get “wounded by an instrument of war”? If the tree did not fight and get wounded, it should not be decorated with a Purple Heart, much less with multiple Purple Hearts.
For the obaminations to use a Purple Heart, the military medal, as a decoration for their Xmas tree is not just wrong, it’s a slap in the face of all Purple Heart honorees worldwide. That tree could have been just as much of a tribute to our military men and women without denigrating one of the most revered awards the military has. For obaminations to use a Purple Heart as a tree decoration says to those who have been awarded it that their valor, their sacrifice, their heroism is just as valuable to the obaminations – and because it’s in the “People’s House”, the (used to be White now-) Red House – and that the nation as a whole, that their sacrifice is cheap, like a souvenir we bought while in Aruba, Alaska, or Madrid. The nation as a whole is now attributed to the denigration of the Purple Heart, to slapping the honorees in the face and making their Purple Heart worth as much as a glass ornament, a popcorn string, or paper chain.
That’s just wrong and I, for one, resent the obaminations denigrating the Purple Heart’s vaunted place in the lexicon of military history and honor. From now on, every Purple Heart honoree will be so proud to know that the award is so special that it also hung on a Xmas tree. Won’t that make the medal on his/her chest even more revered?
Then there’s the whole thing about the Xmas decorations being a witness to the obaminations’ extravagance in times of want. They put up thirty-seven trees, decked every horizontal surface, had a different decoration for every tree, and a different designer for each room, a whole slew of folks in there to volunteer to help with the decorations. Question: did those volunteers get time with the obaminations? (How valuable is the ear of the president even if he’s an ACORNed president?) Did they get fed at taxpayer expense? Did the decorations get purchased by the taxpayers? Did the trees get donated or were they purchased by the taxpayers? How about all those decorations? Were they donated? The lights and the electricity they use, were/are they donated?
In years past previous presidents reused some of the ornaments of past Christmases, or decorated their own tree (and here near the bottom of the page). Yes, Laura Bush had more trees (“nearly fifty”), than the current family, but when reusing ornaments, it’s cheaper to do so. The current “first” family seems to think that they are royalty and that we, the taxpayers, should pay for their every whim, no matter how difficult it is for us to pay our own bills, feed our own family, keep our own house!
Then there’s the whole idea of Christmas and where it is represented in their decorations. Obamination has long said he’s a Christian (well, at least since it became convenient and he had to hide his hatred of America and his Islamism). Anyone see a nativity? Anyone see a manger? Anyone see Christ? See an angel even as a tree topper? I see stars, but they’re the “regular” stars, not one that is considered the traditional representation of the Northern Star that led the Wise Men to Jesus in the manger. Anyone see anything even remotely resembling a Christian symbol at all? I see Bo, the family’s dog. I do not see Jesus. I do not see a Nativity scene. I wonder what kind of Christian celebrates Christmas – Xmas in this case – without a Nativity? To me, that is what Christmas is all about. No Christ, no Christmas. Where is the Christ in their Christmas? Thus, the “Xmas” designation is more appropriate for the obaminations’ décor.
The Bo thing gets to me, too. I see a tree there that has Bo all over it. I see Bo in almost every room: on tables, in marzipan in front of the gingerbread White House, and in buttons, hanging by his neck on a tree (in the bottom video). Yes, they love the family pet. If they wish to celebrate this way, why not change the name of their celebration to “Bo-mas”? After all, that seems to be who they are celebrating instead of Christ. Having that many Bo-icons (pronounced Bow-ih-cons) as the focus of the decorations seems to indicate what is most important in the family’s celebration of the season. So they are having “Bo-mas” instead of a Christmas, are they not? After all, Christ can’t be mentioned unless He’s convenient and necessary for the hiding of the truth. This assertion is proven every time obamination drops the name of Jesus. It’s only there to hide the truth, to distort the facts, to be a convenient touch point. Obamination’s actions speak louder than his words even in his un-Christmas decorations.
In my family – and I would venture to guess, in yours – when Christmas comes around there is a Nativity scene, as well as a few Holy Family representations around. There are ornaments that remind us, as well as traditions that remind us, about what Christmas is all about. We read the story of Christ’s birth in Luke every Christmas Eve, and we remember Him on Christmas day with thanksgiving, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”. Anyone see a Christian Bible in those pictures? I don't. What does that tell you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)