Sunday, September 30, 2012

The Stupidity of the “Amish Bus Driver” Squirrel

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

U.S. Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In a “discussion” with an atheist on Twitter on the question of whether a Christian pharmacist (in my discussion, the pharmacist shall be deemed a male for simplicity's sake) should be allowed to not fill a prescription for the “morning after pill” and the pharmacist maintain his job, I was confronted with the “Amish bus driver” redirect. The First Amendment (above) says via the "free exercise" clause, that the pharmacist should NOT be forced to break his religious beliefs and be forced to fill the prescription. The other person in the “discussion” believes otherwise: it’s all a matter of contractual obligation.

First, let's set the parameters that will help define this argument. Contracts are fine, but legal contracts do not require aiding in murder. That is what Christians believe abortion is: murder. Murder is illegal and immoral and most Christians do not support it in any way, shape or form. Remember: murder is different than the death penalty, which is a punishment upon conviction of a severe crime. Murder is also different than killing someone in self-defense or war. Murder is planning to kill another person for whatever reason and actually taking that person’s life. The “morning after pill” is just that. In this case, the person being murdered is an absolutely innocent being who hasn't even the possibility of having committed an offense to anyone yet; besides the "offense" of having been brought into existence by the actions of two other people. They are culpable; the baby pays the price. A contract between an employer and an employee and the expectations of the employer for the employee to fulfill the employer’s expectations do not trump right and wrong in the case of a human life. If contract equals "must obey", then what is the difference between a pharmacist's employment with a company that wants to provide that service and a contract killing, a la mafia hit man?

It’s not murder, the other side says. It’s a “can be child” that isn’t really a child yet because it doesn’t have “bioelectrical capabilities”. It’s not a "sentient being". It's not self-aware (to some on the left a child is not self-aware until after its third birthday: extra-utero!) thus it is "fair game". The child once growing and forming inside the mother's uterus is "expelled" by the mother's body after the "morning after pill". What once was life -- and if formed in a Petri dish could be used to implant into a woman via in vitro fertilization to make a confirmed, growing, wanted pregnancy: a baby -- is now dead and the price for two others' actions is paid by the most innocent being on earth.

Let’s set that “murder” truth and the First Amendment protection of that belief/practice aside for a while and let’s look at the redirect of the “Amish bus driver”. That question goes like this: If an Amish man applied for a job as a bus driver and was hired to drive the bus then he refused, on the grounds of religious beliefs, to drive the bus would he be able to refuse to do the job on those grounds and maintain the job?

Second, let’s make it clear: The “Amish bus driver” scenario portrays the Amish man as first applying for the job, which implies he is interested in doing the job. It also asserts that the company would be willing to hire a man (assuming the “Amish bus driver” had previously stood with his religious beliefs) with no prior driving experience, no regular driver’s license and no Class __ license to drive a bus. Ignoring the fact that the company would have to be run by complete morons, let’s go with the scenario. The Amish man applies for and gets the job. Then the scenario says that the “Amish bus driver scenario” asks if the "Amish bus driver" can be fired by the company because he can’t drive a bus without breaking his religious beliefs. The scenario asks if the First Amendment would protect the “Amish bus driver” and force the company to keep him on payroll (i.e., protect his “free exercise” regarding his religious beliefs) even though he’s not doing the job he was hired for?

Third, let us understand that anyone is able to go against their religious beliefs if they so choose. Neither the First Amendment – nor the Bible, to be frank – forces anyone to adhere to their alleged religious beliefs. I use the term “alleged” because anyone who CHOOSES to take a job that breaks with their religious beliefs is not necessarily wed to those beliefs; although in this scenario, the “Amish bus driver” is implied to have done so until that driver application moment. The Bible says that many backslide and they can come back to the Lord and, like the prodigal son returning home to his father, GOD will welcome us back. The First Amendment is mute on whether we’d be “welcomed back”, or whether we can CHOOSE to break with our alleged religious beliefs. An “Amish bus driver” choosing to break with his alleged religious beliefs and applying for such a job, is free (regardless of the First Amendment) to drive the bus if he so chooses (apparently in the scenario, without a license).

By the way, if the company was stupid enough to hire someone without a license, with no previous driving experience (of a motorized vehicle; horse and buggy driving does not count as such), with no Class __ license to drive a bus, why should they be able to fire the Amish man? They’re stupid enough to hire him, shouldn’t they face the consequences of their own stupidity? However, that’s a bit of an aside; let us focus on the real questions.

Fourth, the question is whether the “Amish bus driver” is protected by the First Amendment in order to force the company to keep him. A.K.A. do the Amish man’s religious beliefs trump his employer's need for the job to be done; the company’s need for someone to actually drive the bus the Amish man was hired to drive?

Let us look at the question in relation to the pharmacist, since the “Amish bus driver" was the redirect thrown out during that discussion. In the Amish man’s question, he may have deliberately taken the job to perpetrate a fraud: knowing that after applying (and being hired by idiots who apparently don’t care about qualifications) he would refuse to do the work and plead First Amendment. Apparently none of the bus driving would be done by the Amish man after pleading his First Amendment rights, therefore causing the company to hire someone else (hopefully, someone fully qualified with a Class __ license and previous experience), doubling the cost of the one position and saddling the company with a useless employee. That is not a First Amendment right, it is fraud. It is prosecutable and it is wrong.

The pharmacist, on the other hand, got into pharmacology, fulfilling all of the requirements of education, licensing (bonding?), studying the effects of the medicines he would be handing over the counter to his customers and learning what is good and bad about drugs and how drugs interact. In going into practice with a company (a drug store, grocery store, or whatever) the pharmacist fulfills his job requirements on a daily basis (sometimes for years) prior to the first time he is handed a legal prescription for the “morning after (A.K.A. murder) pill”. As a Christian, the pharmacist has a problem with this prescription. Not because it is a legal prescription, but because it tears at his soul. He believes the Bible is the Word of GOD and that it says that GOD creates the child and that the child is precious to GOD. He sees the act of filling that prescription as himself participating in the death/murder of that child. That is something he cannot do. He can’t help kill an innocent baby, so he refuses to fill the prescription.

The woman then has options: she can go elsewhere to get the prescription filled or she can come back when a different pharmacist is on duty and get her prescription filled that way. Her “rights” are not infringed upon; her prescription is filled, but at a different pharmacy or by a different person. It is NOT that a judgment is being passed by the pharmacist on the woman. It is that pharmacist’s heart is breaking at the thought of helping kill a child.

Assuming for the sake of the "Amish bus driver's" supposed discussion legitimacy and assumed employment contract (there's an awful lot of "assuming" going on in this "Amish bus driver" nonsense, isn't there?) the contract between employee and employer is now in question. Did the employee (pharmacist) break the contract of delivering on his job requirements? Let us frame the question in another analogy.

Fifth, Let us create a woman who applies for a job at a hotel in Nevada. She signs a contract to be the front desk clerk (or janitor, laundry person, breakfast cook) and realizes that the job contract is renewable every six months, and has a clause in it that states that she shall "perform other duties as assigned". She has signed this contract and is excited about being paid a good living wage for the job she has taken. Four months into her contract, during a very busy day, she is told by her boss (the company owner who also signed the contract) that she shall report to room 216 and do whatever the man there wants her to do. She realizes that the "whatever" is sex in any form and that she has signed a contract, in a state where prostitution is legal. Does that mean that -- because she was being told to do a legal act while in a contract -- she would have to go perform whatever sex act(s) the man in 216 wants? If not, the same is true of the pharmacist: legal prescription, legal pill; legal (and moral) refusal.

Invalid argument you say because the pharmacist's body and bodily safety are not being impacted by the contractual obligation to fill the prescription. Saying thus negates your argument: the woman can just quit, can she not? But, you say, the woman has a job and a contract and the employer cannot force her to perform sex acts. In Nevada sex for pay is legal, being a legal action and part of her contract via the undefined phrase "perform other duties as required" it could be considered part of the employment contract. Sex in any form (from pre-marital, homosexual, extra-marital, pedophilic sex to multiple partner, bestiality, or self-masturbatory sex) is good and right and even kids will participate in it because it's human nature. That's what we are told over and over again. Why can the employer not tell the woman to do something so natural, so right, so human and expect her to obey her employment contract?

Which begs the question: Should the pharmacist’s rights be trampled so that his customer should not have to go elsewhere or come back to the pharmacy at a different time? The woman may have been inconvenienced but that is all. She was not discriminated against based upon gender, age, race, creed, nationality, or religion. She was not discriminated against at all. In fact, the pharmacist probably prayed for her and his heart broke for her and her child. That is not discrimination, it is discernment and it is standing up for doing what the pharmacist believed was religiously right.

After all, if you do not think that murder is correct you don’t participate in a murder. If you believe that animal sacrifice is wrong you do not participate in animal sacrifice. If you believe the beliefs of Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Voodoo, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., are wrong, do you participate in their practices? The pharmacist chose to not participate in a religious practice that he disagreed with: the practice of those who believe – “believe” being the keyword – that abortion is okay. The First Amendment rights of the pharmacist are protected, thus his job as well, because it is his right to not participate in something his religious beliefs label as wrong. No one can force someone to participate in a religious wrong according to the First Amendment. When it's belief v belief, yours do not trump his.

Sixth, if the company the pharmacist works for is allowed to FORCE him to fill the legal prescription for the “morning after pill”, what can they do next? Can they force him to fill the sleeping pill prescription of someone who is suicidal? Or can they force him to fill the prescription for an emetic for someone who is bulimic? Why would there be a difference, unless you wish to discriminate based on age? A child in utero is less valuable than a twenty-four year old? (Atheists worldwide answered “Yes!”) The child's murder is the most important thing and the pharmacist's rights and conscience carry no weight: the child must be killed.

Seventh, although the "Amish bus driver" is thrown under the bus in the argument quite often by the liberals, the pharmacist’s situation differs so drastically from the “Amish bus driver” scenario that it is ridiculous to even associate the two. Let us count the differences:

   1) The pharmacist is fully qualified; the “Amish bus driver” is not

   2) The pharmacist’s employer hired him as fully qualified; the bus company hired someone totally unqualified.

   3) The majority of the pharmacist’s job is being done on a daily basis; the “Amish bus driver” refused to even start doing his job (probably a good idea since he has no experience driving anything but a horse and buggy).

   4) The pharmacist’s boss has certain expectations of their employee, including the fulfilling of prescriptions; the bus driver’s employers apparently have very few expectations since they hired someone totally unqualified.

   5) The pharmacist’s experience tells him that this pill will lead to the death of a child; the “Amish bus driver’s” inexperience leads him to blackmail the company who was stupid enough to hire him, crying "First Amendment" to keep his job.

   6) The pharmacist’s religious beliefs tell him to not fill the prescription that will lead to the death of a child; the “Amish bus driver’s” inexperience leads him into taking over the entire company because his "First Amendment rights" were protected and because he was at least smarter than those who hired his inexperienced backside in the first place.

   7) The pharmacist did no injury, did not discriminate, did not harm the woman’s First Amendment rights, just inconvenienced her; the “Amish bus driver” did an illegal act to stupid people and wound up owning the company and vacationing in Brazil during Mardi Gras for the next ten years before selling the company back for a huge profit to those who hired him in the first place.

   8) The pharmacist, if fired, had his First Amendment rights trampled on because his religious beliefs -- and his practice of them -- were being over ruled and dismissed by the woman and his employer; the “Amish bus driver” had a change of heart, returned to his beliefs and to his simple life and used his bus company money to buy six horses and buggies and start an Amish Taxi Company, LLC, and lived in simple comfort the rest of his life (with some very explicit memories of Brazil).

Acknowledged: A little silly, but you get the point.

Eighth, this is where the discussion will inevitably turn to “What about single men who get Viagra so that they can have sex outside of marriage? Isn't it hypocrisy for the pharmacist to fill that prescription when it's against his beliefs for people to have extramarital sex? Should he do that?” To which I respond: Does the pharmacist get to ask if the man is married? No. That is not allowed. In order to get to that information, the pharmacist would have to ask some mighty personal questions: questions that are totally illegal. Therefore, the pharmacist has no idea if the man is married, unless he knows him on a personal level. Also taken into account is the fact that in having extramarital sex, while wrong, it is not murder in the pharmacist's eyes. It is the murder that prevents the pharmacist from filling the "morning after pill" prescription, not the immoral act that conceived the child.

When the pharmacist reads the prescription for the “morning after pill” the pharmacist’s education tells the pharmacist (without questioning the woman) that the pill’s exclusive job, reason to be prescribed and to exist, is to kill a child. That is not an invasion of privacy, for none is needed when the pharmacist’s education tells the pharmacist what is going to happen. No questioning happens. No intrusion of any sort is done by the pharmacist. All that is needed is for the prescription to be read and understood. The “morning after pill” does certain things and killing the child is the main thing. That’s where the religious beliefs of the pharmacist kick in.

Ninth, this is America. Anyone may CHOOSE to break with their beliefs, thus the “Amish bus driver” question is a redirect: someone yelling, “Squirrel!” Remember: that “Amish bus driver” scenario can be turned around. Let us consider an atheist who applies for a job at a Catholic Church. He is hired and – as part of the job – is required to participate in church services, prayers, baptisms, communions, etc. If he were hired, and refused to do those particular parts of the job that required him to participate in the “religious portion” of the job, should he be fired? After all, if it’s fair for the “Amish bus driver” to be fired, it’s fair for the atheist too, yes?

Tenth, since the question is whether a pharmacist not filling a prescription for the “morning after pill” is something that would mean the pharmacist should lose his job let us consider more possibilities. Here are several situations in which a pharmacist does not fill a prescription. For which of these should the pharmacist be punished via losing his job, or via job loss and legal prosecution?

   1) The pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription that he knows is on a particular doctor’s prescription pad, but it is not the doctor’s writing. Since it is a prescription, should the doctor be forced to fill that prescription?

   2) A pregnant woman goes to the pharmacist in question with a prescription that is from a doctor, written properly, legally to fill, but will harm a baby the woman wishes to keep. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription?

   3) The pharmacist is handed a prescription for medical marijuana, which the pharmacist believes there is no medical reason to prescribe marijuana and believes that the marijuana will do more harm than good, possibly leading to harder illicit drugs? Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription? See: Is Pot Good for Lungs..."

   4) The pharmacist receives a legal prescription for Xanax from the same patient who came in twice earlier in the week with legal prescriptions for Xanax from two other doctors, all three with refills. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the prescription?

   5) The pharmacist receives a legal prescription from a patient who shows signs of serious depression and the prescription is something that could be used to commit suicide. The pharmacist is very concerned that the patient will use the prescription to kill himself. Should the pharmacist be forced to fill the legal prescription?

In which of those five scenarios should the pharmacist lose his job? If only one is a job-loss refusal, then why not the other four? He still refuses “to do his job”, so why not fire him for all five – or in the case of the “morning after pill”, all six – instances? If you say that only the “morning after pill” instance and the medical marijuana are instances worthy of firing, why? Why are the others not worthy of firing since in all instances the doctor is NOT “doing his job”?

Finally, considering the other possibilities helps bring the argument into focus. The pharmacist's right to not violate his religious beliefs are not trumped by a contract. If contract equals "all powerful ruler of conscience and decider for other people of right and wrong", then where does that authority end? What is the breaking point where the contract becomes a secondary consideration? When does the right guaranteed in the First Amendment to "the free exercise thereof" stand between a contract employee and an employer and start protecting the employee? If it does not start with the individual's heart and conscience and their stand against obeying the order, then it does not exist at all. The pharmacist would have to live with the guilt that accompanies the contractual agreement that would trump his "free exercise thereof". Where does the pharmacist's right to his own conscience end? Is it at his employer's orders? If it never exists except on the basis of gender (the female hotel employee), then who is discriminating (mirror, mirror)? If, on the other hand, the right to the "free exercise thereof" is protected, guaranteed and enforced for all, across the board, who will be harmed? The customer can get the prescription filled elsewhere or by someone else and her religious beliefs do not trump his.

The "Amish bus driver" tail chaser is so irrelevant to this discussion that it requires an immediate dismissal of its usefulness to this issue. Anyone who is lame enough to throw that into the mix is just that: lame. Yelling "Squirrel!" is not a valid argument.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Monday, September 24, 2012

The Visit

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

The headstone is no different
Than thousands that are just like it
No standing out, no stand alone,
Just standing there, a known headstone.

A mom, a dad, a brother dear,
A wife, a child visit him here,
They come together or by ones
To visit the sacrificial American sons.

They paid the price, the highest cost
To keep us free, no liberties lost,
Gave more than strength, limb, or life,
They gave your heart, too, cut with grief’s knife.

And now the stone, cold, but strong,
Helps your life to move along
And when you visit, this one headstone,
Your memories are not alone.

For other visitors, to other stones,
Are there with you, their memories hone,
The feeling of the place you stand,
In Freedom’s marker for this great land.

Although we visit not the stone,
We ask you to know you’re not alone
We understand the sacrifice,
And thank you all for the given life.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Inspired by this photo. Again, I remember that WOMEN also serve and I thank them, too. The terms used fit the cadence of the poem, but does NOT reflect any negation of women serving, too.

Monday, September 10, 2012

One Foot Away

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

On fields of death and glory

       In times of troubles deep

‘Tis men of honor, courage

Whose efforts freedom keeps.

A step away from eternal

       Rest of endless days

A foot away from friend; suddenly,

Friend’s breath goes away.

A foot away from danger

       As EID explodes

Two more platoon mates

Gone now; downed on rough dirt roads.

Home and loved ones beckon

       As oft as heart beats in breast,

He stays for them and others

For freedom’s life’s behest.

Until they all come home now,

       Until the last returns,

Keep them all in prayers

For they make freedom’s light burn!

# # # # # #

I know that there are women serving in our armed forces as well. I do not mean to deny that. I use the term "men" here as in "mankind" and not as a gender. I thank ALL of our men and women who serve, or have served, and someday will serve. I can never thank you enough. GOD Bless You All!

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Arguing In Circles

Believe it or not, I spent about five hours “debating” with a member-but-non-member of “Anonymous” overnight. I found out that they don’t have members, they vote but don’t actually, and they count the votes that they don’t take but they don’t count them because they take them. There are no leaders, just people who persuade and if someone thinks something is a good idea, it just gets done, but it isn’t something that they tell you to do because they tell you to do it but not. Yes. It went exactly like that. My head is still pounding with the illogic of it. Maddening. So, I did what I always do. I wrote a poem about it. And here it is for your enjoyment:

by and © 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

I talked to you for quite a while,
all the time with just a smile,
at what you thought was "logical"
but was actually hodgepodgical.

You argued this and you argued that
turned around and rephrased the cat,
and said the air was blue-aful,
or maybe good was only awful.

The circles run 'round by your thoughts
engulfed a yacht and half a box
of chocolate covered Langoliers
and reduced me almost straight to tears.

When once you said that X was true,
then posting later it's opposite rue,
you made my head spin on its stalk
to you it was so hard to talk.

When discussing facts you had some straight,
but logic, reason - oh fate! - escaped,
and just because you said Y here
you pulled it back and held it dear.

Retractions none came from your mouth
quixotic behemoth north is south.
Believe yourself a great debater
believe me, sir, negotiator

If but a whiff of logic stirs
you'd stamp it down, cover with myrrh,
and froth up waffles to dungeon couture
escaping molecule of reason mature.

Deny not your illogical tome
it sits safely on Twitter's home.
If this is Z, but it's not, and "C",
or W is N but cannot be...

Be still my brain, relax and calm
let this poem be my balm.
When illogical logic circles you
Just remember, they haven't a clue.

by and © 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

A Haiku: Moon, Silver

To Our Troops:
© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Moon, silver,
Shining bright, outlines
Safety guards.

Moon, silver,
Serenely smile on

Moon, silver,
Keeping evil bayed,
Heroes stand.

Moon, silver,
Seeing all, one falls
All feel pain.

Moon, silver,
Set not until, soon,
All return.

Moon, silver,
Welcome home, our troops
Into love.

Moon, silver,
Bless all those who gave,
Are above.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Inspired by: This pic!

Friday, July 27, 2012

I'll Hold You, My Child, Up Here In My Heart

By and © 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

For Landon and all of the war babies who never knew their Dads

I knew about you before you were born and
Loved you from moment one. I imagined your smile
Your little bitty toes, your baby blue eyes and your cute button nose.

And I held you in my heart, not yet in my arms, and
Knew from that moment you held my heart. Even though I
Had not met you as yet, you had my completely, feelings I’ll never forget.

Then my country called me away and you went with me
In so many ways as I carried you in my heart. I missed you
So much that when all alone I cried a little, wanting to get home.

You cheered me up when I was down, gave me courage
as I stood my ground. You were born just three weeks
ago, seven pounds, three ounces; my how you’ve grown.

Now I watch over you from up above, an enemy’s bullet
Took me from your love. But you’re still with me
As I with you and I’ll watch over your mother and you.

I’ll watch you grow up, get married, have kids,
all from above. I’ll hold you forever, no matter how far,
I’ll hold you, my child, up here in my heart.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Saturday, July 7, 2012

A Service Dog's Loss

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

His eyes spoke volumes, his heart was bereft,
His voice was nowhere, his buddy had left.

His loss was complete, his master was gone,
Even so, he must carry on.

Others depended on him, they needed his skill,
He must keep going, though lost of life’s will.

He remembered the times, the fun times of play,
The way his master said, “Let’s do good today.”

Together they saved lives, just not this one,
The one of his master, his favorite Army son.

His eyes spoke volumes, his heart was bereft,
His voice was nowhere, his buddy had left.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

The Foundling Fathers

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

The Founding Fathers heard Freedom’s cry --
Though other countries had passed her by --
And picking up this Foundling child
Gave her a home in this country wild.

Freedom’s love for Fathers grew
And multiplied by fours and twos.
Freedom’s love touched hearts of men
And tyranny ne’er held place again.

The Foundling child – denied far and wide –
In Amerca people took her side,
Against the King of England’s shores
The Foundling’s Fathers for her implored.

America now a burning light
Of Freedom’s virtues of all men’s rights
The Foundling’s Fathers declared her life
Worth fighting for ‘gainst gun or knife.

And so began the cost of war
Paid by many as nary before.
Freedom’s cry touched many a heart,
Brand new nation, had its start.

A victory, first one then two,
And Foundling Freedom’s red, white and blue
Was lifted high through rocket’s glare
And Foundling’s Fathers saw Freedom there.

She’s been since then in every fight,
America’s bright and guiding light,
This Foundling child other countries trod on
Became the world’s favorite beacon.

Two-hundred Thirty-six years later now
As other people come take the vow
That Foundling child – the Fathers’ pride –
Writ large in history, the change of tide…

The Foundling Fathers chose Foundling child
Gave her a home in this nation wild
And child, in turn, turned Freedom’s face
Into our nation’s greatest grace.

GOD blessed America with Freedom’s light
He gave within us sense of wrong and right.
And if we listen we hear the drum
The beat of Freedom in our heart becomes.

Thank GOD for Freedom; remember as well
Those who no longer the tale can tell
For in those lives was Freedom’s price paid
Freedom’s Foundling’s Fathers her call obeyed.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Thursday, June 28, 2012


© 1994 Linda S. McKinney

If the last American Eagle
circled slowly in the sky
and no human eye saw,
nor ear heard Eagle's cry.....

If in his talons —
in air still pure and blue —
the last vestiges of Freedom,
though none claimed its residue.....

If in his eyes Eagle saw
enslaved down below —
deaf, blind, mute, and halt—
chiseled beings of stone.....

If Eagle brought to us
Freedom's greatest Light
placed gently into sculpted hand
Truth of Wrong or Right.....

If Eagle rose up slowly —
awaited cold, death-like grip
to make courageous effort
to be distinguished from the rest.....

How many times would Eagle come
to retrieve the Greatest Gift
until, Eagle's mission complete,
stone moved — transformed into Man?

© 1994 Linda S. McKinney

Monday, June 25, 2012

Let's Create A New Month!

“National Bubble Bath Day”
“Lumpy Rug Day”
“National Anti-Boredom Month”
“Fishing Week”
“National Irish American Heritage Month”
“National Grapefruit Month”

Did you know about these? All of these are actual items that our United States Congress spent our money being paid to create the paperwork for, to use electricity and printer ink for, and to vote on. All of the items listed are actual days, weeks, months that are remembered via listings on calendars, acknowledged via organizations, County Commission meetings (depending upon the item, of course), or mentioned on the floor of the House for their particular days/weeks/months. Amazing, yes? You think that’s amazing, there are a LOT more that I didn’t list. Check it out at “Holiday Insights” . You’ll drop your jaw.

Do a search for “National American Pride Month” and you get returns about “gay pride”, or “National Caribbean American Heritage Month” or “Native American Heritage Month”, but not a “National American Pride Month”. Why not?

Where is it that says that Americans cannot have pride in America? Why is it that we are the only ones who cannot have a month, week, day (besides July 4th) for expressing our Pride in the good ol’ U.S.A.?

I have been contacting my U.S. Representatives – or the future U.S. Representative for my district, whoever that may turn out to be – and asking him (Mica) or her (Adams) to sponsor a bill that would make July “National American Pride Month” and it would be thus forever more. I even contacted Sen. Marco Rubio about it via Twitter. Whether he or any of the others will do anything about it, I have no idea. But it’s something we really should push for. We should be proud of America and proud to be Americans. We should have a national month to say so. After all, if the hyphenated Americans get one, shouldn’t those of us who claim no hyphenation?

If you are proud to be an American and proud of America, support this cause. Write to your U.S. Representative, your Senator, and anyone else in the House and Senate whose contact info you have (brothers-in-law, uncles, sisters, moms) and ask them to support and sponsor/cosponsor a bill designating July as National American Pride Month. It’s time to bring back American pride and to shout it from the housetops and parade it in the streets. Gay pride has nothing on the U.S.A.! Let’s not let the strange, the obscure, the hyphenated, get designated celebration months/weeks/days without having American Pride as our own. It’s time.

Monday, May 28, 2012

"Son, Husband, Father, Friend"

My Memorial Day 2012 Tribute To Our Troops

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

He was her son when at two
She saw with pride he learned to salute
His smile so wide, tip-toed shoes untied,
Soldiers passing returned his salute.
Until his Dad, with glad heart
Saw his son for the very first time.
Up in his arms, he swept his son,
And he loved him, as no other could have done.

His body landed heavily against the wall;
Another soldier fallen, another family torn apart,
And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

He was her love, her life, her husband; she was his wife.
He made her laugh, he made her proud,
He made her wonder what she would ever do without
His tender touch, his quiet strength, his certainty,
His way with kids, his support, his curiosity.
He went through life at warp velocity.

His body landed heavily against the wall;
Another soldier fallen, another family torn apart,
And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

A "Daddy's Girl" is what she was,
A little princess, with dimples (two) that won his heart.
As tiny hands encircled his, the four-year-old stepped on his feet
And they danced their first waltz, it was so sweet.
He kissed her, hugged her tight, touched her hair as he said "Goodnight"
And she missed her Daddy, drew him pictures every night.

His body landed heavily against the wall;
Another soldier fallen, another family torn apart,
And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

He pulled him from the first attack,
"Careful, Brian, I've got your back!"
He stood so strong in this hard place,
A rock, a fortress: still a kind, friendly face.
His men respected, obeyed, knew a force
For good, for them, for freedom's course.

His body landed heavily against the wall;
Another soldier fallen, another family torn apart,
And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

Son, husband, father, friend landed there against the wall,
Without a warning; without a call.
Without his presence, they will all stumble on.
Missing husband, father, friend and son,
Knowing his death paid freedom's price,
And that he thought it worthwhile sacrifice.

His body landed heavily against the wall;
Another soldier fallen, another family torn apart,
And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

And the blood ran down his chin in the rain
And the blood ran down in the rain.

© 2012 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved


Thank you to all those who have served and whose families have lost their loved ones. To those who have given all and those who have lost some. To those whose hearts are broken and those who are still awaiting news. To those who make the difficult decisions, to those who face the hard battles, to those who face the toughest foes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We could not be America without you! GOD Bless Each and Every One of YOU!

Friday, May 25, 2012

Brett Kimberlin: Fighting Dirty Doesn't Trump Free Speech!

The start of his crime spree may have been this:

"it is suspected that Kimberlin had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Sandra Barton’s daughter, Jessica, who was only 10-years-old when Kimberlin met her"
Ever hear of him; Brett Kimberlin? I probably heard of him back in 1978 -- and if not him, then his actions. That was the year I moved to California, but that doesn't mean that we would not have heard of what he had done. He planted a series of bombs at Speedway, Indiana and one of them cost a man part of his leg and the man later took his own life. Kimberlin wound up in prison for seventeen years to pay for his crimes. Not that seventeen years is enough, but it's a start. Maybe with enough people blogging about it he'll get a few more years.

Evil as what he did in the past, his current actions are no better. He used his time in prison -- on YOUR dime -- to become an attorney (What do you call six attorneys at the bottom of the ocean? A good start! -- Old joke, but here's the first attorney.) who sues anyone and everyone who mentions his name in a negative fashion. He almost got a L.A. Assistant D.A. "SWATted" by calling in a false confession of murder, saying he was living at the D.A.'s address and that he had just shot his wife. Evil.

Evil because the SWAT team did respond, guns drawn and with every intention of taking down a murderer. That's Kimberlin's thing: fighting dirty. He can't win without fighting dirty, so instead of a fair fight obeying the rules, he must do the worst thing he can to his opponents.

This blog tonight -- and many others like it -- is not about glorifying evil, but about standing against it -- en masse -- and raising our voices together as one. Isn't that what the Wrongies always use (mass protests, many voices, lots of people? In a message to those who would use Kimberlin's tactics -- even Kimberlin -- that we have the right to Free Speech guaranteed us in the First Amendment and we will not be silenced, we stand united! We ARE Americans and we ARE going rise up against you and all those who will fight dirty, try to silence the Conservatives and those who believe in doing the right thing, against those who try to stifle Free Speech and try to intimidate those who oppose you!

Don't like it? Go join obamination's Choom Gang and CHOKE ON IT!


Friday, April 20, 2012

How Much Are You Worth?

What is it that makes Christians (and others) believe that they have no right to think themselves worthy of GOD’s love and forgiveness and Christ’s sacrifice?

I’ve been wondering about that for some time now. I taught a Sunday School class in which the literature provided by the Sunday School Board of our religion said that we, humans, are unworthy of the price paid for our forgiveness and of GOD’s love. Poppycock.

How is the price – the worth – of something decided? While teaching that Sunday School class, I approached the subject in the following way. I had on a pair of clip-on earrings. I took one off of my ear and held it out as I went from student to student and asked them who would give me a hundred dollars for the one earring. None would. I lowered my price as I asked again. It took a price of twenty-five cents before anyone would say that they might pay that price for the one earring. Thus the price for the single earring was – at that time – twenty-five cents. Whatever someone is willing to pay is what the price is. The value (worth) of the earring was twenty-five cents.

The worthiness of humans, the value of you and I in GOD’s eyes, was decided when the price of our salvation was decided prior to our creation. GOD and His Son decided long before the earth was made that the price for our sin would be the sacrifice of Christ. How do I know that?

When GOD created the earth, Jesus Christ was there, helping Him create the earth (John 1:1-4) and “all that therein is” (Psalm 146:6). According to Ephesians 1:4-6, before the earth was even created, GOD and His Son had decided to give us grace through salvation in Christ (KJV):

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

According to the Bible (GOD’s Word), it was GOD who set the price for us. He decided that our price – our worth – was Christ’s blood and death. People who say that we are unworthy are not just wrong, they are ill-informed or ignoring (or ignorant of) the Bible.

For us to be unworthy would be for GOD to have decided – before the creation of the earth or at any time afterward -- that the price of our salvation was to be something less than Christ’s sacrifice; or that there would be no price high enough or that He was willing to pay so that we could be saved. If that had happened, then we could have counted ourselves unworthy of Christ’s death on the cross. That didn’t happen. The Bible, GOD’s inerrant Word, says that GOD decided the price prior to creating the earth, and that Christ decided to go to the cross (John 19:11) to pay that price for us. So both GOD and Son decided the price -- our worth -- and carried through with the actions that would be necessary for our salvation: to prove our worthiness. It was their choice.

Considering the pre-planning that GOD and Son did and the fact that they willingly carried through with their plan, that seems to prove to me that we are worthy. At least, GOD’s actions say so.

Remember, GOD could have interfered with the crucifixion of Christ. GOD could have spoken a word and the people who had Christ in custody would have gone to sleep, died, been killed by hellfire and brimstone as were those in Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ could have escaped as He admits “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” Twelve legions of angels (a legion is three- to six-thousand) can accomplish a lot, don’t you think? Couldn’t thirty-six-thousand angels get Christ away from those wishing His death? Couldn’t they at least protect Him long enough for Him to make His escape?

Our worth, then, is based upon the decisions of GOD and Christ and it was they who both chose to do what it took to ensure that Jesus Christ went to the cross in our stead and paid the price for our sins. It was GOD the Father and GOD the Son who chose to pay for you and I, the sinful, messed up, inconstant, lazy, weak humans who can’t seem to get it right for more than a few months at a time. Christ -- who lived a sinless life and did nothing to deserve to die, and not those of us who truly deserved it -- died for our sins.

He "who knew no sin” CHOSE since before creation to go to the cross and bear our sins. The only one on earth who never sinned died for our sins. The “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) CHOSE to go to the cross and be scourged and mocked and to die for us. GOD and Jesus Christ decided long before that day what our worth was.

Next time you are in church, Sunday School, a social gathering, with family and friends and you hear someone say anything about us – or themselves – being “unworthy” set them straight. You’ll be doing them a great service because in realizing their worth in Christ Jesus people also realize that GOD put that value on them. What better way to realize who you are, how much you really are worth, than to know that it was determined by the Lord God Almighty before time began?

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Veganism's Political Cause: Part Deux -- God’s Instruction to Eat, Eat, Eat Meat!

As a follow-up to Monday’s posting, Veganism’s Political Cause, I present “Part Deux: God’s Instruction to Eat, Eat, Eat Meat”. Think big, juicy steak…

Some folks think that meat eating didn’t start in the story of the Bible until after the great flood of Noah’s time. In that reference, GOD told Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:2-3),

“And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

I, however (as usual), beg to differ. Of course!

Just after the Garden of Eden was vacated and Adam “knew” his wife and she conceived Cain and Abel, Abel grew up and became a shepherd. Now, I have a problem with the idea of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel keeping sheep that they can’t do anything with except being responsible for. Death had already entered the world with Eve’s sin, so I think that the sheep had to have served a purpose. Back then they weren’t really into “conspicuous consumption”. They had only the things they needed and they didn’t think that it was a good thing to keep things that did nothing but take. If you have a flock of sheep that aren’t meant for anything but for the sheep to eat, for you to herd and consume your time, effort and doctoring, then why would the family have them?

My idea is that they had sheep for a reason. That reason was to eat them. They had a resource, not just a burden that they herded to this field and that field and then another field. They had food on the hoof. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that they were NOT eating meat at the time. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that GOD forbid it. It says that prior to sin, the people and the animals all ate veggies. After the “Big No No”, not only was there punishment for the sin, but soon thereafter, you see the first offering to GOD (Genesis 4:4):

“And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:”

If the lamb had not been killed, how could the fat be gotten for the Lord? Hmm? If the lamb is killed, according to the Book of Exodus, the Passover was a lamb, that the Lord instructed killed and eaten (Exodus 12:6-11):

“and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

“And they shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the house, wherein they shall eat it.

“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

“Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.

“And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.”

So we see that they were instructed to eat the rest of the offering. As with most offerings, at least parts of the offering – dove, heifer, lamb, ram, whatever – is eaten by man. Not all offerings were eaten: the consecration offering was totally dedicated to GOD. Other than that, at least part of the offerings were eaten by man.

Stay with me now, GOD says to eat parts of the offering animals in Exodus, and Jesus is GOD and they are one (John 1:1-4), and, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Then when GOD says to eat part of the offering during the Passover, and again during the sanctification of the Hebrews who came out of Egypt, is that any indication that GOD intended at least the priests to eat part of the animal offerings all the time, as He commanded in Exodus 29:27-28?

Does that mean that back in Genesis 4:4 when Abel was bringing the “firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof” that they were offering one of the types of offerings defined in Leviticus? Was it a sin, meat, burnt, peace, or trespass offering in which they would be following the laws of Leviticus, in which it says that the priests get a bit of the offering. Was Adam the family priest: especially considering he used to walk and talk in the Garden with GOD Himself?

So we see that GOD commanded Adam to do animal offerings (or why would he be killing a lamb if he wasn’t supposed to?), and GOD commanded the Israelites to do animal offerings. Thousands of animals in the Old Testament were made into offerings to GOD. That means that thousands of animals were at least partially eaten by man throughout the Old Testament. Remember, they were the stand-in for the ultimate stand-in: Jesus Christ. Blood had to be shed and trees, veggies, roots don’t bleed! Therefore, it had to be an animal that died and the offering had to be made of something with blood. It couldn’t be a non-animal – fruit, veggie, stone, wood – it had to have blood running through veins.

“But, wait! That was Old Testament!” you say. Okay. Let’s look at the New Testament standards.

In the New Testament we see that Jesus ate meat in Matthew 9:10, 26:7, Mark 2:15, 14:3, 16:4 and Luke 24:30. If it’s good enough for Christ, who is part GOD, then why should we not eat meat? Remember, also, that when the offerings were made, GOD "ate" parts of the offerings via fire.

We also see that the regular people ate meat in many verses and that Christ used giving people meat to the hungry and that He thought it a good thing: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:” (Matthew 25:35). If eating meat was so bad, why did Christ use it as an example of doing something good, something praiseworthy, as something that GOD rewards? For we see in Matthew 25:32-34 that GOD rewarded those who did such a thing:

“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left,

“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:”

Next is the part about being hungry and given meat. That’s praiseworthy in GOD’s eyes. Throughout the New Testament the eating of animals is an acceptable thing.

You can get a Concordance and look up for yourselves how often the eating of meat is mentioned in the New Testament. Before you scream and shout that “meat” is not always actually animal flesh, it sometimes stands for other foods in the New Testament. I understand that, but that does not destroy the fact that at times – quite often – it DOES mean animal flesh and that it meant that they killed an animal and actually ate it as vegans and vegetarians do not.

What kinds of animal flesh did they eat? We see in the Old Testament that they ate lamb, ram, bullocks, heifers, goats, dove, etc., the animals that met the cleanliness criteria. In the New Testament, they ate those and after the Lamb that Washes Away All Sin was offered for OUR sin, the rules changed.

In Acts 10:9-22, we see the story of the “Great Sheet” that Peter saw. In the story, Peter was on the rooftop praying and was very hungry. Instead of going and getting a snack, he stayed and prayed and fell into a trance. In the trance:

“he saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to earth:

“Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”

These things were the things that did not meet the criteria of cleanliness that was set in the Old Testament. GOD said to Peter, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” Unheard of so far in the Jewish world, Peter of course said, “Not so, Lord: for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” But God was persistent (as He still is today) and said it a little stronger (Acts 10:15):

“What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

According to verse sixteen, this was done three times, GOD felt so strongly about it. When someone says “No way!” to you three times and you are GOD, what do you do? His motives were correct: doing the right thing via obeying the dietary laws. But GOD did not punish Peter, He let Peter absorb, analyze and consider the incident and come to his own conclusion. Peter, it states in verse 17, “doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean”.

Some say that this vision is strictly about men. Well, I happen to half-disagree.

When this was done, the death of Christ made all things clean; even what we eat. Remember, Christ already taught His disciples that, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” His death paid the price for all things to be clean (the vision taught us this) and it is not what we eat that makes us unhealthy or healthy. (Where in the Bible does it say that food makes us healthy? Anyone?)

Here’s the “half-disagree” portion: Yes, it can also talk about the men who came to visit Peter shortly after the vision. There were three men and three times the message was given. Maybe it also applies to them. However, I think that the food part of it was just as important. After all, the dietary laws protected the Jewish people against certain diseases and parasites. So for GOD to lower a sheet of “unclean” animals and to tell Peter to “take and eat” was an outrageous thing for GOD to do! For a Jewish person to even consider eating lobster – a scavenger – was considering sinning. That wasn’t something a disciple of the Lord wanted to do. So it must have been a big shock to Peter for GOD to instruct him to eat pig, lobster, ostrich, etc. But GOD did tell him and told him three times so I think He was serious about it, and I think it applied to both animals and man! Remember, it’s not what “goeth into the mouth” that defiles someone. It doesn’t matter what you eat according to Christ. It’s what you do and say.

There is one thing that I want to add here. If you are a Christian, should you be a vegetarian? Yes, you may be a vegetarian because it’s not “what goeth into the mouth” that defiles us. Do I see it as disobedience to GOD’s word to be a vegetarian/vegan? Yep. I do. He commanded us throughout the Bible – both Old and New Testament – to eat meat. From Genesis 9:2-3 to Acts 10 GOD commanded us to eat meat and Christ, who is GOD, and GOD Himself, set the example and ate meat. So being a vegetarian/vegan as a Christian is, IMHO, being disobedient, n'est-ce pas?

The sharing of an animal’s meat is a rewarded thing. So why would it be considered by those who believe the Bible to be the Word of GOD as a bad thing? Vegetarians think they’ll be healthier than those who eat meat. This is their opinion, but would GOD command us to do something that is bad for us? Consider that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19) If GOD is going to “make it good” because He has commanded us to “take and eat” then why on earth would anyone want to disobey GOD and be a vegetarian?

Obedience gets us blessed. Disobedience gets us not blessed (to be nice about it). It is your choice, though. Which do you choose?

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Veganism's Political Cause

I listened to part of the amy tiddlywinks show last Saturday. She and her guests were talking about how politics affects what our doctors tell us and how what we eat – they’re vegan or vegetarians – will heal us and prevent cancer, etc.

I started thinking about what they were saying and I started thinking about alternative motives for progressives to push veganism. I came up with a few possibilities. I am not saying that these ideas are actually what they talk about when it’s just them. I am not saying that somewhere in their past the founding fathers of Marxism/Communism/Socialism (which is what progressivism actually is) actually thought this, wrote any of this, talked about this. I am saying, “What if?” No harm in asking the question, right? As they say, “There is no stupid question.” Right?

For instance, they could be for animal rights. Animals are as important and as good, intelligent, or worthwhile as people. Do I agree with those feelings/beliefs? Nope. Do I think that it’s a good idea to think of future dinners as equals? No. That creates a feeling of cannibalism. That chicken that’s going to be my dinner in two months is NOT my equal in any way, shape, or form. Can a chicken write, talk, drive? Nope. Nope. And nope. Can that chicken do simpler things: zip a zipper, fill a glass, tie a shoe? Again: triple nope. Is a chicken capable of even smiling? Nope. Beaks don’t bend. Okay, so that’s a little cheat, but you get the idea. My chicken dinner is not my equal.

Does it have the same capabilities in other areas: does it have the ability to feel pain? Yes, but not the same way we do. Our brains are much more developed than theirs. They may feel pain but their receptors are not as high as ours. In fact, did you know that a chicken once lived for months without its head. Yep. Check it out. Could you do that? If not, then your body/brain connection is much more necessary than a chicken’s. So that makes you more developed than a chicken. You are superior to a chicken.

Lobsters, crabs, invertebrates can feel, think, do even less than a chicken. So we’ll not cover them.

How about beef – cows? Are they capable of doing more than a chicken? Yes. They are more developed than a chicken. Since they have more capabilities than a chicken, we have to ask if they can do something more than a chicken. So, can a cow drive, type a legible sentence, wash a sink full of dishes to food handler’s standards? Nope. Nope. Again, nope. It’s the same answers as a chicken’s. Does that mean that cows don’t feel? No. Does it mean that they should be treated as equals to humans? No. They cannot perform the higher functions. You’ll never see a cow do surgery, will you? You’ll never see a cow teach college, do calculus, or operate heavy machinery.

Does that mean we should torture our food prior to eating it? No. But it also doesn’t mean that they are our equals or that we should give them the same rights we have. After all, they won’t realize that they don’t have them: they are incapable of doing so. It’s like painting a wall blue instead of pink because you perceive it to be a male wall instead of a female wall. Does the wall realize or care which color it is painted? If not, then don’t worry about giving it a coat of whatever color paint you so desire. Same with a cow: it doesn’t realize whether or not it has rights so don’t worry about giving it rights. If it can’t exercise them without us doing so for it, then why bother? Your purse can’t get up and go somewhere you are without your help, so why give it legs?

So the animal rights angle is a possibility, although why they want to give animals rights is another question.

Another possibility is that food is a delineator. Ever see a poor man eat Kobe beef without a rich man buying it for him (a la us paying for obamination’s Kobe beef dinners)? Without anyone eating lobster, Chicken Kiev, Kobe beef, lamb, veal, etc., there can be no delineation between the rich and the poor. It’s all about equality, right? But equality is a two way street: the animals get equality and the people feel more equal. No one can afford any food that is better than the “little guy”. It’s all about “everyone eats rice”.

When it comes to veganism, what could the possibilities be for wanting others to be so, too, besides animal rights?

How about the possibility of taking GOD out of the public picture as a possible motivation? That’s a possibility. Tiddlywinks talked about how food can heal you and talked about the largest study in the history of the world done in China and the food they ate and how food made people get well. You take away the need for GOD to heal you and replace it with food and then you don’t need GOD do you? Take the issue of praying to GOD for healing away and you’ll see the food replace GOD. Isn’t that what it’s all about: food is the healer, thus food replaces the Great Physician? Don’t pray, eat. You’ll be fine! Food will take care of you. Eat kale, don’t pray. (It can be their mantra: “Eat kale, don’t pray! Eat kale, don’t pray!” placards of green…)

Or maybe it’s the idea that it gives Wrongies more power over the rest of us? Take away our food choices via animal rights and who gets to control whom? Yeah. Power is what they want and with animal rights and forced vegetarianism they get it. Is that a possible motivation for pushing vegetarianism? Control is the name of their game. Do you want them to control you?

How about another possibility? Maybe they’re just delusional? Maybe they think that they’re going to replace GOD in their lives with food and that it will do for them what GOD will do if they just turn their lives over to Him and be His child? Maybe that’s their delusion. Maybe that’s the way they choose to deal with the GOD shaped hole in their hearts? Maybe they choose tofu over Creator? If that be the case, that’s their problem and their delusion but it doesn’t mean that they need to get the rest of us into their delusion.

So we have three possibilities about what tiddlywinks and the other progressive Wrongies were talking about. All of them can be applied and used side by side, or they are all stand alone possibilities as well. Whichever way you look at it, there’s another motivation for pushing veganism/vegetarianism. Mark my words. There’s another reason for pushing vegetarianism/veganism. It’s not because they care about you. It’s not that they want you to be healthy. They certainly don’t want me to be healthy! They don’t want George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney to be healthy (especially not Dick Cheney!). Why would they want that? So it’s not about everyone being healthy.

When it comes to what your physicians won’t tell you – especially about the food you eat and the results it supposedly brings about in your body – do as tiddlywinks encouraged you to do. Think about the politics of it all. Think about what the truth is and how they do things. Think about their history and where the whole vegan movement came from. Think about their past and their previous motivations. Then ask yourself these questions: What is their political motivation for trying to spread vegetarianism? And, do they really want me healthy? Then you’ll have the answer as to why they’re spreading veganism.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Having the Same Standards?

Last month I proved that maureen rupe lied about SC HB 277, the Fetal Pain Bill, in the March edition of the pooper-paper. She said that the bill gave a rapist rights to a child conceived during the rape. Not only was that a lie, it was proven to her and to the owner of the pooper-paper that it was a lie. I sent the bill, in its entirety, to both of them and had an iota of an expectation of seeing a correction or retraction in this month’s paper. If not a correction or retraction, I thought an addendum of further comment was necessary. You know, like Congress gets to “Reserve the right to revise and extend” their remarks? Yeah. Something like that. It wouldn’t mean that the rupester would have had to admit that she had done anything wrong, it would have been further comment on the issue.

Too bad I have higher expectations of rupester than apparently she does of herself. In this month’s pooper-paper (at the time of this writing, not yet available online), there is no correction, no apology, no effort to “revise and extend” (not even to blame the source of her erroneous information whose link she gave). She totally ignores last month’s LIE, writing as though it never happened. No mention. No “in retrospect”. Nada.

If the rupester would not write an apology for the error, I wondered if the owner of the pooper-paper would do so. Him? Nope. Although he knew that rupester had lied. Although I sent the bill to him and proved to him – if he took the time and made the effort to read it or even do a word search on it – that rupester lied, he chose to ignore the lie and let the lie stand.

To me, that tells you what the truth means to those two: rupester and the owner of the pooper-paper. It means nothing. It holds no sacredness. It matters less than a dot. It has no meaning and no honor. The truth is worthless to them if it does not serve their progressive purposes.

What alarms me most about all of this is the fact that there are those out there who took as fact the lie that rupester wrote. Some people bothered to look up the truth, finding the lie on their own. Others, fortunate enough to have a friend who reads my site, found out the truth via a friend and my site. Others, unfortunately, had nothing but the rupester’s words to consider as the truth. Of course, being in a supposed “newspaper”, some people believe that – of course – it must be the truth. Newspapers don’t publish lies. They only deal in the truth. Of course, that’s if they consider the pooper-paper a “newspaper”.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists’ website, journalists should:

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.”

If you read the website, you find out that the truth matters to real newspapers and to real journalists (apparently that leaves out a very wide swatch of currently employed “reporters”). They state that, “Deliberate distortion is never permissible.” Unless you’re working for the pooper-paper, or some other progressive rag, the truth is supposed to matter. Deliberate distortions -- or anything short of the diligent, full, absolute truth -- are outside of the journalistic realm of possibility.

Well, so much for that idea.

In this month’s pooper-paper, rupester takes on both Rush Limbaugh and I and fails at both.

She writes that Rush Limbaugh should have “kept his mouth shut” regarding his reaction to the Sandra Fluke statements. Rush said that Ms Fluke was a “prostitute and a slut”. rupester says that now Rush is losing advertisers, big time.

Well, she’s not just stupid, she’s wrong. She could have checked the facts prior to posting her opinion on the issue, but she doesn’t care about the facts. Fact is, Rush is not hurting from his words, according to this Washington Post article. It states, “Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success”. So when rupester says that Rush “wishes he had kept his mouth shut”, she’s not just wrong, she’s very wrong. Rush’s ratings are up, way up in many markets. Too bad rupester hadn’t checked her facts prior to writing her silliness. She could have prevented herself from looking foolish regarding her “kept his mouth shut” idea.

When she mentions the “blog that said this was free speech, and the old adage ‘sticks & stones’ applies and the young lady in question should not be offended as it will make her stronger”, that’s moi. She misquotes me a little, but that’s not to be a surprise. What I actually said was,

March 7, 2012 Bill Maher has reasons for supporting Rush. I just support Rush. It's called "Free Speech" First Amendment protected. He's allowed to call names because they "will never hurt" her. He's not using "sticks and stones" so what is the problem? Rush is allowed to say, "slut and prostitute". What doesn't kill her makes her stronger, right? I think so. Besides, Rush getting involved is getting ms "pay for our birth control" fluke more attention than otherwise. It's free publicity for her cause. She's not unhappy with it. She knew he'd have to comment on the issue, she just didn't know it could be milked this long. The Wrongies went home and celebrated, partied and e-mailed back and forth all night for two nights because they were so excited. Trust me. Do a FOIA request for that and you bet your sweet bottom dollar that the e-mails will prove me correct.”

So where in there do I say that ”the young lady in question should not be offended”? I didn’t. rupester, of course, takes a little “poetic license” and writes whatever she thinks will do me the most damage. Too bad she fails in that, too.

Then there’s the hypocrisy of her last paragraph in which she laments, “The fact is, words do matter. They can be lethal as a knife stab in the body.” She then goes on with, “In discussions, in my opinion, when it goes from a debate to personal insults, then the attacker has lost the argument, and the discussion is over.”


Does she have any recollection at all of her parting-shot article from her D1 Commie campaign? If not, let’s refresh your memory. rupester wrote:

"The Primary Election

"Thank you to all my friends and neighbors who voted for me in the primary. As for the nasty little group of former PSJ Civic League that found it necessary to have two websites opposing me, I could forgive them if they had argued the facts. To use twisted logic and downright lies to control an election is shameful and deceitful. One site was like a Nazi or Skinhead hate site, unbelievably malicious and vindictive, but the woman in question has harassed me for 14 years and I have kept the proof. Every time I worked for the benefit of the community, her hatred of me grew. She opposed the referendum for the ball fields, community center, Fay Lake Wilderness Park, as well as the Community Police Unit. She has attacked almost every community leader in Port St. John. Her name is Linda McKinney. Now, even after I lost the primary, I am receiving hate mail, the content and phrases of which are the same rhetoric as her site, which shows how dangerous hate sites can be.

"What concerns me most is the owner of the other website, Pete Costello, has now taken out a Political Action Committee on another person running for office who has worked for many years for the PSJ Community. So does this mean that all a radical group has to do is work against any candidate with smear campaigns, and they can control an election? Freedom of speech does not mean you can lie, harass and maliciously slander and libel.

"I have been threatened that I had better stop appearing before the county commission or any other entity, along with a barrage of personal insults, as well as being told to go back to England and leave everyone in PSJ the hell alone. Whoever you are, take time to read the U.S. Constitution. I am an American. You will never take away my rights because I will never hand them over. Cheerio!

"- Maureen Rupe"

So rupester herself resorted to “personal insults” in her post primary article. I was “like a Nazi or Skinhead hate site, unbelievably malicious and vindictive”. I “harassed [her] for 14 years and [rupester has] kept the proof.” Right. I am a Nazi Skinhead, malicious, vindictive harasser. Trying to hold someone to a set of standards in the public discourse is bad according to the rupester. It’s not something she likes. Whenever anyone proves something negative about rupester, she has to fight back with a personal mention in the pooper-paper. Accordingly, this month rupester had to write something bad about me.

I e-mailed rupester and the pooper-paper’s owner/publisher the truth about the article rupester outright LIED about in last month’s bird cage liner in plenty of time for them to get the correction or retraction into the April edition ahead of their 18th of the month deadline. Both refused to write the truth or publish the truth, or even correct or retract the BLATANT LIE that rupester told. That was their choice.

If the truth doesn’t matter to the pooper-paper then, as with Rush and his paying the price for his words, why should anyone bother reading the pooper-paper? If no one is reading it because they want the truth, not just the Wrongie agenda, why would anyone advertise in it? If, according to rupester’s gleeful tidbit, Rush should be losing advertisers because of his choice of words, shouldn’t the pooper-paper also lose advertisers because of theirs?

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Something Suspicious This Way Comes

On May 2, 2011, the death of Osama bin Laden was reported. Those responsible for the death of the terrorist were hailed as heroes. Seal Team Six was the group that entered bin Laden’s complex and made the final call.

Three months later, Seal Team Six was decimated by the death of almost a dozen of the Team members as their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. God rest their souls, comfort their loved ones and we will never forget them. Semper Fi!

Since that date, Aug. 6, 2011, I have had the uneasy feeling that I’ve heard that story before; as did my husband.

According to Christopher Ruddy, Bill Clintoon’s Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, was killed on an airplane in Croatia. According to the official reports, the plane Brown was on slammed into a mountainside as they approached the airport of Dubrovnik. One “survivor” was found by the Croatian rescuers first on scene, but later American reports said that all died on impact. That’s a bit suspicious. But, if you read the report at the link, there’s so much more.

Consider also the Aviation Weekly stories that raise questions as to the veracity of the stories released by the MSM and the Clintoon administration. Considering this – and considering that the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton – what are the chances that since we didn’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it?

The obamination administration refuses to release the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden. Although being sued by Judicial Watch for the pictures, obamination steadfastly refuses to release the alleged pictures.

After allegedly killing bin Laden, obamination ordered bin Laden’s body buried at sea – supposedly in accord with the dictates of the Koran/Quran. If you read the book, it says nothing of burial at sea and according to Islamic scholars, it is not “respectful”.

A death whose pictures will not be released: a burial whose witnesses have never come forward; a burial of a body whose DNA could never be tested; and soon thereafter, the death of the elite forces who allegedly brought bin Laden to his just desserts. No one can either confirm or deny that Seal Team Six actually killed bin Laden, nor that they were ordered to take him alive.

There’s the rub.

What if?

What if Seal Team Six was ordered to capture bin Laden and bring him to a designated place so that the administration may try to get information out of him? Or, contrariwise, the administration would congratulate him on his following of the Koran/Quran and keep bin Laden comfortably provided for in a French chalet somewhere, with servants and good food and wine; all that he wants at American taxpayer expense? All under the guise of using his information for defense purposes, but in actuality, using our money to thank him for a job well done?

Consider: If you have the ability to find your biggest enemy, order his death and actually carry it out, wouldn’t you release all information possible – including pictures – in order to plant the feather firmly into your cap and ensure the public’s good opinion and hero-worship of you? With an ego as big as obamination’s would he not be the one person in all the world who would do exactly that: pictures, details, speeches by the Seal Team that made it all happen? Yet none of that has happened. Extremes of egotism such as obamination’s would dictate the actions if at all possible. Have you seen any of those things? Yet with everything else obamination does – or pretends to do (religion, health care, gas prices, “lower” unemployment, a “better economy”, etc., etc.), -- he relishes the admiration, the praise, the belief in the Almighty One. With the death of bin Laden, nothing. No admiration. No songs. No celebratory parties at the Red House (and we all know how much the obaminations love to party!).


Ever hear anyone on the ship that allegedly dumped – I mean buried -- the body at sea say anything about it? Is there a story anywhere that the shipmates have reported on the burial? Any of the people on the ship ever say anything on Facebook, Twitter, or hinted at it in a blog? Or is there something that the Captain has ordered to keep them quiet about it? Even with orders, though, something that big happening must soon slip somewhere into a sly little comment, a backwards reference, a nod to the fact that bin Laden’s body let air escape as it slid down the board. There should be something in the air, some little buzz: at the very least immediately following the burial it should have been a little lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). Reality: nothing.

The death of Seal Team Six conveniently prevented any of the Team from denying or confirming the claim. With their deaths, bin Laden’s alleged death details were obliterated. All chances of anyone refuting the story that the administration has put out is gone. Their death is a little too convenient and a little too cushy for my taste.

The fact is, other sources say that my theory is possible.

Remember how many of the Clintoon’s previous associates died suspiciously? Now we have a Clintoon as Secretary of State. Who deals with the Foreign Policy of the United States of America? Who handles the relationship with the Middle East? Where was Osama bin Laden? Where was bin Laden allegedly killed? Where was Seal Team Six killed? Where is the proof (pictures, etc.) that bin Laden was killed as alleged? Where are the slips of the tongue incidents that follow a major development of that sort?

Why is the obamination administration fighting in court to prevent those pictures from being released – at the very least to an independent organization, Judicial Watch, who can confirm or deny the accuracy of the administration’s assertions?

Why has the Middle East gone silent on the subject as well? Considering how “beloved” bin Laden was in the Al Qaeda network, how rich he was, how respected and adored he allegedly was within the Muslim community due to the fact that he successfully attacked “the Great Satan” several times, why are they not still mourning his death in public and still voicing their disapproval?

One final thing to ponder: I think that’s the most telling thing. It’s election time. When was the last time you heard obamination crowing – yodeling even – the reminder that he killed Osama bin Laden? With an ego as big as obamination’s, doesn’t that silence speak volumes?

Monday, January 30, 2012

Another Song of "Liberty"

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

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.