Thursday, November 22, 2007
Seattle Public Schools sent out a letter to all of its teachers suggesting that Thanksgiving should be a time of mourning. The mourning, the letter states, is over "rigid fundamentalists" who STOLE fizzy lifting drin... er, I mean, Native American lands and repaid friendship with betrayal. It also states that it is a myth that Thanksgiving should be a time of happiness.
The news I read did not state whether the author of the letter, Caprice Hollins, the district director of Equity, Race and Learning Support had Indian ancestry, not that that would have justified the statement. It also did not state why the author of the article has not immediately and irrevocably deeded any lands and possessions therein to the original landholders in a fit of pique. The article did not answer why being "rigid," a "fundamentalist," or a "rigid fundamentalist" might be considered to be "wrong" or "in bad form" this holiday season. So then, if I was wishy washy and liberal, would that make me better? More acceptable to your school system, perhaps?
We must all FEEEEEL collective white GUILT for the SINS of our ANCESTORS in order to UNDERSTAND minorities better! I don't buy it, bucko. The Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Florida State Seminoles, the county of Cherokee, where I live... these are all tributes to those groups of Indians and ties to the lands history. By and large, the ones offended by such names are liberals who have adopted such philosophies (politically correct ones) and are riding them for all their worth. My old high school, Ridgeview High, had the Redskins as their mascot. When it became a middle school, *someone* changed the mascot to Panthers to keep from "offending" people. I say with pride, I shall always be a Redskin at heart.
Ridgeview High we're all for you,
Our thoughts of thee will er be true.
Passing moments far and near,
Thy memories and praise are clear.
Mighty Redskins we will be,
Always faithful unto thee.
Loyalty and truth be nigh,
To Alma Mater Ridgeview High!
To Ms. Hollins and all those who agree with her, I offer the following disagreement by way of my own definition of Thanksgiving:
Thanks (given to God, by whom we all were made, for our lives, our families, and the blessings of this life;) and Giving (of ourselves to others, traditionally over sharing a meal, such as was done among the Pilgrims and the Indians they befriended.) There, now. Was that so hard?
Happy Thanksgiving to you all =)
Thursday, November 15, 2007
There was an excellent speech given by Senator Lieberman which was roundly ignored by the major news outlets, but was covered by the Weekly Standard and thereafter picked up by Fox News. Its candor is refreshing, speaking words which would carry no weight coming from the White House, but whose truth rings soundly. He calls out the Democrats for specifically working towards an American defeat, just for the sake of repudiating our sitting president. There has been some talk of a Huckabee-Lieberman candidacy, which would possibly be able to mount a challenge to the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. The entire speech can be found at Lieberman's website.
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:
Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.
But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .
I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.
The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .
Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.
[T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.
For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed. . . . That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party--but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.
I hope that Democrats will one day again rediscover and re-embrace these principles. . . . But regardless of when or if that happens, those convictions will continue to be mine. And I will continue to fight to advance them along with like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Baptist Convention Expels North Carolina Church for Welcoming Gays
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Delegates to the Baptist State Convention have voted overwhelmingly to expel a Charlotte church for welcoming gays and lesbians without trying to change them.
Myers Park Baptist Church became the first to be kicked out under rules passed at last year's meeting. Those rules say any Baptist church that affirmed or endorsed homosexual behavior would be considered not to be cooperating with the convention.
The vote by the nearly 3,000 delegates came after two of the church's leaders called on them to open their hearts to homosexuals who want to worship with them and to respect local autonomy in interpreting the Bible.
But convention president Allan Blume told the meeting that the Bible calls on believers to turn away from sin. He also suggested that Myers Park Baptist was mostly interested in seeking publicity for its views, not in trying to work within the Baptist State Convention.
Ahhh, I see. So a church is expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention for welcoming gays into their congregation. Interesting. Would a church be expelled for, let's say, welcoming those who have committed adultery? Those who have worked for the IRS? Those who have persecuted the church? Would a church be expelled from the convention for welcoming Jesus? In as much as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me. Welcoming a person and being an advocate for sin are two entirely different matters. How can one seek truth in a Christian community if they are not even allowed to be present?
Oh, but wait. Scripture states that believers must turn away from sin. So why have you not kicked out all who continue to smoke? Why have you not kicked out all who continue to lie? Why have you not kicked out all who continue to gossip? All who are commies? All who are not politically correct? All those who ARE politically correct? All who disagree with your way of thinking? OHHH. Those sins don't count. I understand now. /sarcasm off
Often times, news blurbs such as the one above only contain part of the story, usually the part that is sensationalized. If this church is truly seeking to be the attention hound of Christendom within the public media, using homosexuality as a means to an end, the problem is with church leadership, not with the congregation.
One must learn when consuming information to read between the lines. Come to think of it, what am I REALLY trying to say in writing this article?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Here is a good article about the February 11th, 1955 Eisenhower UFO meeting at Holloman AFB, during a one and a half day period when his whereabouts could not be accounted for (supposedly for a case of the sniffles.) It contains information I had not yet been privy to. Yes, it is not terribly reliable, considering it is "friend of a friend that is now deceased" information. Nonetheless, many times a grain of truth can be found while sifting through sand. Here is the entire article, with source and another presidential UFO site.
PS I recommend the PresidentialUFO site- FASCINATING!
Film Of 1955 Extraterrestrial and U.S. President Eisenhower Meeting?
by Ed Komarek
I would like to detail the case of a personal local contact that I had years ago. The contact was Sam Standland who was the biological father of a contactee friend of mine. Extraterrestrial (ET) contact runs in the family. My contactee friend put me in touch with Sam years ago and had me go interview him at his trailer where he lived east of Cairo Georgia about 30 miles. He had contacted the Pentagon to see if it was okay to talk but they did not get back with him right away so I went over to interview him along with my contactee friend.
It would seem that Sam had fallen through the cracks because his military records had been burnt up in a fire in the 1970's. After he talked with me, the Pentagon got back with him and when they found out that he had talked to me they read him the riot act and even threatened a friend of his that I had not had contact with. His trailer was burglarized and all his papers taken and were later replaced with new different ones. He and his friend went out and got drunk together after all this went down. Still he secretly told more of his story to his biological daughter over a period of several years.
I seem to have lost my report on this case but what I remember from the interview was that he had been in the Air Force and flew in the western United States with a group of pilots around 60 I seem to remember, that took gun camera photos of UFOs. This was in the 1950's and I think he said the Air Force had 9 saucers in 1959. He was transferred to the Pentagon where he held a top secret clearance. While he worked at the Pentagon he had access to files where he saw photos of both dead and live aliens. One was where several different types of live ET’s were lined up against a underground tunnel wall. The pictures were taken by Jimmy Doolittle.
I also remember him telling me about seeing pictures of a crashed saucer inside a hanger. The core of the saucer was on a flatbed truck and the saucer itself lay on the floor with a big hole in its side with pipes and things hanging out. He said the craft had hit the ground very hard and the core of the craft punched through the wall of the craft making the hole. He said the core was heavy but the craft itself was light and could easily be picked up by two men.
I had not heard from my contactee friend for quite awhile and yesterday I thought I ought to write up this case for my blog as I have been building up some cases so that others can see a little of the evidence upon which I base my thinking. Today I got a call from this friend and ended up talking with this friend for a couple of hours this evening.
My friend said that Sam also told her about viewing a black and white movie of the meeting between President Eisenhower and human ET’s which I assume was the alleged 1955 meeting. My friend says that it showed the three craft coming down over the runway doing some flight demonstrations and one craft landed and human ET’s came out. They said that they were willing to cooperate and give mankind technology to cure disease and cheap non polluting energy technology if they would make concessions in regards to warfare and other things but Eisenhower said the government was not ready for that and that cheap energy technology would severely disrupt the economy.
The ET’s were lead into a hanger where the men pulled guns on them and said they would be forced to give out the information. The ET’s walked out through the wall of the hanger and went back to their ship and did some more demonstrations like disappearing and reappearing and then left. This apparently contributed to Eisenhower’s heart attack Sam told his daughter.
It is not clear between my friend and I if Sam was involved in briefing other folks like airmen or was briefed for some other reason. My friend also says that Sam told her that he was in North Africa and he watched as two jets tried to shoot down a craft and the jets were disintegrated. He saw this with his own eyes. My friend also said that Sam told her about the military gathering up transceivers scattered about the country by the ET’s that when dropped on the ground would bury into the ground so as to be hard to see.
This story seems consistent with other folks testimony from the 1950's. I thought Sam told me he retired because of a disability in the late 1950's but my friend thinks that he just might have been moved to the Pentagon for work in the 1960's. Sam died a number of years ago so I can publish his name. I remember writing up a report on this at the time but have not been able to find it. There was much more detail but my memory of the interview has faded. I did not want to make this case public because of trouble to Sam and the family.
I do remember that this was the first time I had heard of the name of Jimmy Doolittle associated with Extraterrestrials. I even talked to John Lear about this over the phone and he confirmed that Jimmy Doolittle was involved. He said that when he first got involved with UFOs his mother was concerned and called the family friend, Jimmy Doolittle about UFOs and he said yes they are real but I can’t talk about it. This is a rather small detail but its new information like this that really strengthens a story in my mind. I also had never heard of a crash where the heavy core punched a hole through the outside of the saucer either. He also said that there were crashes before 1947, another thing that I had not heard at the time. I seem to remember the date of a pre 1947 crash as 1942. I think Sam’s story should be taken seriously. There is nothing like personally meeting and talking to people and hearing their stories directly, especially those who do not want to go public because of the repercussions.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Caution: Graphic imagery contained herein
I can't even begin to properly fathom what I have just read, and what I have just seen. I am a Christian. A teacher. I am dedicated to my students to help them get the best science education I can. In Africa- Gombe, Nigeria, to be more precise- there was another teacher in a public school who wanted to help her class. Until some Muslim students complained... then rioted.
The basis of their complaint was that the teacher had touched a bag belonging to a student which contained a Koran. Because the teacher was Christian, touching the bag had evidently "defiled" it, and "defiled" the Koran held within. They began beating this woman, named Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin, and she had to be dragged out of the class and taken to the principals office where she was locked in a bathroom.
Other Muslims outside the school were attracted by shouts of Allahu Akbar! coming from the students. They entered the school and broke down the principals office door, along with the students. The teacher was dragged out and beaten about the head with a tire iron, causing massive blood loss.
The principal somehow managed to free her and took her to a nearby house, but the rioting Muslims went in, dragged her out, and beat her to death. They then burned her corpse, celebrating.
The liberal response to this is "all they need is understanding." I know if Christians were doing this in the name of Jesus I would be raising holy freaking hell. Instead, we are treated with silence.
When I hear stories like this, it makes me wonder if Bush is right.
I am simply stunned and speechless. Here are the links:
Dear God, I pray for this woman who was killed because of her faith in your Son, Jesus. Please gather her to yourself, and be with her. Comfort her family and her husband. Let Your will be done. I pray for those who perpetrated this act in the name of their religion. It seems to me that the real defilement occurred in their hearts. Please forgive them. Help them to see, that killing, murdering others is not something to rejoice in. Do they really desire to see all of us dead? 100,000 shout "Death to America" in massive rallies in Iran. Please help us to see and discern rightly, not with judgment and vengeance, but with understanding and enlightenment of spiritual things which are not seen, by the power of your Holy Spirit. Amen.
PS As an afterthought, I checked to see if this post was, in fact, accurate, as the article I got the information from was posted on April 1st. It's all true. I appreciate Brook verifying this in her log.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I hate the Patriots. Yes, the golden boys of the northeast who can do no wrong. The juggernaut that smashes every team in it's way. I hate 'em. Now, it would be easy to say, "Oh, he's a fan of the Falcons- its crying over spoiled grapes." The comparison between the Falcons and the Patriots records is irrelevant. So why do I hate the New England Patriots?
Certainly they have a great team. An outstanding offensive line. A quarterback in Tom Brady that can make pinpoint passes. This is the team, however, that was caught cheating. C-H-E-A-T-I-N-G. It was enough for the commissioner to take away the teams #1 draft pick next year. The coaching staff was caught taping opponents on the sideline in order to decipher the play calls the opponent was sending in, or alternatively, to read the lips of the coaching staff as the plays were sent in, so a heads up could be sent to the offensive or defensive team captain on the field. This is akin to Barry Bonds' alleged use of steroids. How long were they doing this? It brings the Super Bowl titles the team has won into question. They had the same coach, Bill Bellichick.
Not one player openly condemned the coach for this practice. Not one called him out. On one hand, one does not bite the hand that feeds you. But on the other, one must stand up for what is right.
Secondly, this is the coaching staff that deliberately runs up the score on opponents, pouring salt on the wounds of defeated teams. I am reminded of the Falcons Super Bowl run of 1998. Denver's coach Mike Shanahan had the game won. They were up by a margin that ensured their victory in that game, and the Denver players were celebrating on the sidelines. What did they do? They ran up the score, calling long passing plays, insulting the Falcons for all to see. That memory still burns in my mind to this day. Bellichick and his staff are doing this same thing on a weekly basis. Compare this to Dan Reeves, who, in one year when we were defeating the Panthers by a wide margin, would run the ball to the 45 yard line, then punt, serving to run out the clock on our offensive series.
This is called mutual respect for an opponent. Running up the score is not something that Tom Landry of the Cowboys would ever do, rest his soul. Nor is it something that many coaches of days past would consider. It was an unspoken gentleman's agreement.
I speak from not being perfect myself. Pride cometh before the fall, as we have seen in the case of Michael Vick. I should hope that, when it comes time for the New England Patriots to fall, that the fall would be a steep one. Perhaps Mr. Bellichick and his team would not mind when every other team in the NFL does the same to them as they have done to others. Of course, they would not be around too long should this happen. Shame, that.