Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Not by employing meaningless, symbolic gestures like that last Democrat president. Does anyone remember when Clinton tried to convince our children that the nation's budget deficits were everyone’s responsibility? Does anyone remember how thousands of school children were encouraged to conduct penny drives and to raid their piggy banks and voluntarily send their change to Washington? Remember how proud those ignorant kids were for doing their part to "save the country?" Do you remember how their liberal teachers encouraged them by saying, "every little bit helps?" What a bunch of happycrap.
Well, not this president. Obama is rising to the occasion and demanding that His cabinet bite the bullet and make massive cuts. Atta boy, Chief. That’s what responsible leadership looks like. That’s true statesmanship. That is what we expect from the greatest leader in the history of the world.
One hundred million dollars! Say that over to yourself a few times. "ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!" Look at that in numerals; $100,000,000.00.
If you are still having trouble visualizing how great this is, this short video clip should help put things into perspective.
Is that the "change" He promised?
Don't you feel a lot better now?
Come to think of it, all the change collected by the children for Clinton's budget deficit might have more substance.
Monday, April 27, 2009
That’s what the guy told me as he proudly boasted, "I worship God all day long, every day; I am constantly praising God and talking to Jesus. I don't have to go to church to worship God.” This kind of mindless drivel is akin to another hackneyed phrase, "I don't have to go to church to be a Christian."
I don’t generally go out looking for a doctrinal fight on purpose and it has been a long time since I engaged in an intellectual debate with an unarmed man BUT I just couldn’t help myself on this one. I jumped headlong into it.
The actual content of the ensuing debate is irrelevant here except to make a general observation. His entire attitude and his arguments clearly demonstrated a rejection of the absolute, sovereign authority of the Word of God.
When I answered one of his objections with scripture, his response was, “I disagree.”
So I reminded him that my arguments were not my own inventions, my ideas, or my opinions but were, in fact, scriptural and that his disagreement was not with me but with God.
Then he employed the classic, inane, non-argument. He said, “SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE WHERE IT SAYS I HAVE TO…………..” (You can fill in the blank on this one; it doesn’t really matter what you put there. I have noticed that whenever a person has a problem with the authority of God is his life, he often deflects to this kind of stupid demand.
Needless to say, I lost the debate. Not because my arguments lacked substance, principle, or Truth. I lost because, in his final effort to outdo me, he stripped me of nearly 70% of my ammunition in one statement. He said, “and don’t give me any of that Old Testament stuff either; we are in New Testament times.”
That’s when I knew it was over. Without God’s Word, any supporting arguments we may have on any subject are only reduced to our own opinions. And that is where he wanted me-on an equal playing field in the emotional arena of subjectivity and personal preferences.
“O.K!” I conceded and I turned to walk away. And that really made him mad.
I learned a long time ago, the futility of trying to argue against stupid or emotional beliefs. In another post on this site, (“Don't Confuse Me With The Facts, I've Already Made Up My Mind”) the evidence is clearly presented that, introducing facts into a debate makes very little difference; people will believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence or truth.
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.” Proverbs 26:4
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
According to the report, it seems clear that this administration views conservatives as dangerous enemies of the state.
The White House
It’s me again. I see where you are cracking down on your administration to cut spending at all levels. Atta boy; give it to 'em. You have rightfully acknowledged that most individuals, families, and businesses in America must tighten their belts during these hard times and that a responsible government must lead the way.
I have been trying to convince my friend, who is living beyond his means, that he must take personal responsibility to make some meaningful sacrifices. He and his wife are struggling to make ends meet; their monthly obligations are about $1,500.00 more than their income since his wife was laid off and his salary has been reduced. So, by following your lead to cut one hundred million dollars (approximately one twentieth of one percent) from the federal budget, they have decided to deprive themselves of one candy bar per month thereby proportionately cutting their expenditures by 75 cents per month. That’s a good start, don’t you think. Thank you for your example and courageous leadership; I feel a lot better now.
On another note, I do appreciate your recent willingness to listen to suggestions for cutting expenditures. I have a great idea for saving millions (maybe billions) of dollars. Here it is:
Decriminalize the printing of counterfeit money. Think about it. The savings to law enforcement agencies, the courts, and the penal institutions would be mind-boggling. But the greater savings would occur by shutting down the government presses and closing the mint. Why should the government spend so much money printing bogus, worthless paper money when there are so many talented people out here who can do it for free? Private businesses would benefit too. Think about how much they would save if they didn't have to buy all those little brown marking pens to test for funny money.
You are welcome to use this idea and take credit for it as your very own. You don’t have to thank me for it; I just want to do my part to help.
Your faithful supporter,
Saturday, April 18, 2009
It started out innocently enough. I began to think in public now and then just to loosen up a little bit. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.
Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's.
I came home early after my conversation with my pastor. "Kathy, I have a confession to make, I've been thinking..."
"I know you've been thinking," she interupted, "I’ve known it for a long time. I could tell when you started laughing. I want a divorce!"
"But Kathy, surely it's not that serious" I said.
I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with a PBS station on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors...they didn't open. The library was closed.
To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.
I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. And my pastor is holding me accountable to ensure that I don’t slip up and succumb to the temptation to indulge in an occasional thought. And he has assigned counselors to watch out and make sure I don’t laugh anymore. I know I will never be completely free from this awful thing that plagues my life. That is why I am asking you, my friends to help me and pray for me. I need your encouragement. Life just seems a lot easier, somehow, now that I have admitted my problem and stopped thinking.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
- Enter the amount of money you earned last year $________________
- Send it to the IRS.
- Smile and pretend you liked it.
Ralph M. Petersen
Thursday, April 9, 2009
There is so much that I want to say to you and so little time. But today, I want to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt sorrow for the way so many mean-spirited conservatives are shamefully trying to make some big thing about your posture before King Abdullah.
I watched both video clips several times and, I have to admit that, even though you seemed to be hinged at the waist, your torso was parallel with the floor, and your face was close enough to lick his shoe, that doesn’t prove that you bowed to Saudi-Arabia’s evil king. I mean, who am I to judge?
On your behalf, your spokespersons have issued an official statement declaring that it was NOT a bow; that you, in fact, were simply looking for the king's hand. That’s a good enough explanation for me, man. I believe you.
And I also believe that O. J. did not kill his wife, that Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman, that the world is flat, and that, even though he looks and walks and talks like one, Donald is not a duck.
Ralph M. Petersen
(emailed to the White House at 8:22 AM, April 10, 2009)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Subject: Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America. Jan 5, 2008.
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
- M1 Carbine
- Sturm Ruger Mini-14
- Bushmaster XM15
- Armalite M15
- Thompson 1927
- Thompson M1
- NHM 90
- NHM 91
- SA 85
- SA 93
- Olympic Arms PCR
- Calico Liberty
- Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU
- Fabrique National FN/FAL
- FN/LAR, or FNC
- Hi-Point20 Carbine
- Thompson 1927 Commando
- Kel-Tec Sub Rifle
- SKS with detachable magazine
- SLG 95
- SLR 95 or 96
- Steyr AU
- Galil and Uzi Sporter
- Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)
- Calico M-110
- MAC-11, or MPA3
- Olympic Arms OA
- TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10
- Armscor 30 BG
- SPAS 12 or LAW 12
- Striker 12
- Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
- a folding or telescoping stock
- a threaded barrel
- a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below)
- a forward grip or a barrel shroud
- a second pistol grip
- a threaded barrel
- a barrel shroud or can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip
- a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip (see definition below)
- the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds
- a revolving cylinder. ames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone with an I.Q. higher than an idiot, that they also want to disarm you and leave you personally vulnerable and unprotected. Gun control advocates in this country have an insatiable desire to outlaw every kind of gun (including your child’s Red Ryder BB gun) and when those are gone, they’ll come after your slingshots, bows and arrows and pitchforks.
The following video clip is one of the best explanations of the second amendment I have ever heard. I don’t care for the gross vulgarity of Penn and Teller but, on this subject, they get it right. Caution, at very end of this clip (at 57 seconds), Penn drops the F bomb so beware if you are prone to being more outraged by vulgarity than you are by tyranny and please, spare me the critical comments; you have been forewarned.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
- The statistic are in; the Christian church is losing its influence and impact in the world. That is because we have largely ceased being what we are supposed to be in preference to trying to be relevant. In this post, The Reforming Baptist makes this startling indictment against the man-centered philosophy of market driven church movements:
The mantra for the church by its biggest name leaders is "relevance!" but I am convinced that American Christianity in western culture is absolutely irrelevant no matter how hard they try to engage the world by trying to relate with them.
- Who do they think they are anyway? Isn't congress elected by the people to represent the people and protect the people. Doesn't the Constitution limit the power of the Federal Government? In this video clip, Neil Cavuto takes one of to them task for overreaching their control and for their frightening expansion of government power.
- In this next clip, Alan Keyes issues a sober warning. We had better stop the laughing and Kool-aid drinking before we lose this country.
- In one of my favorite rants this week, Glenn Beck challenges the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to stop trying to make or interpret the law and just ENFORCE THE LAW.
My friend, Pastor Ron Livesay, has started his own blog, Buffalo Noise, where he is posting many of his archived position papers, articles, and random thoughts from his years of Christian School Administration.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
With the arrival of the eight day Passover Festival, I was preparing some material for our family-reunion Seder meal when I stumbled across one of the most important of all verses in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Leviticus 19:15 declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice: you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow."
About fifteen years ago I engaged in a memorable public debate with my friend Dennis Prager in which he rightly identified this passage as perhaps the most crucial conservative verse in the whole Bible. It should, indeed, come as a revelation and a rebuke to all liberals that Holy Scripture identifies "favoring the poor" as "a perversion of justice."
As I argued in my townhall column about the essence of liberalism (posted on March 21st), the outlook of the left insists upon favoring the poor and the unfortunate—and thereby injecting unfairness and discrimination into the very core of politics and government. Favoring the poor, like favoring the rich, brings unequal treatment based on status, not actions. Justice requires rewarding good behavior, no matter its source, and discouraging and punishing bad actions, no matter who performs them.
Concerning the crucial sentence, Rabbi SchlomoYitzhaki (Rashi), the great 11th Century sage commented: "'You shall not favor the poor' means that you should not say that a wealthy man is obligated to help the poor, therefore it is proper for a judge to rule in favor of the poor litigant. Torah insists that justice be rendered honestly; as important as charity is, it must not interfere with justice."
Jewish tradition goes on to clarify the apparent contradiction between numerous Biblical injunctions to act compassionately to the poor, to the widow and the orphan, and this unequivocal insistence on avoiding favoritism. The essential point is that it's the individual that's primarily commanded to display compassion and give charity, while the government, particularly in its judicial aspect, must judge actions, not persons.
The profound significance of Leviticus 19:15 becomes apparent with the other hugely important commands that follow it almost immediately. The next verse states: "You shall not be a gossipmonger among your people, and you shall not stand aside while your fellow's blood is shed- I am The Lord." Then one verse later comes perhaps the most famous statement of all the Hebrew Scriptures (Leviticus 19:16): "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself – I am the Lord."
Leftists should take note: "loving your neighbor" doesn't involve protecting him against the just consequences of his own mistakes, or giving him special dispensation if he's unlucky, or punishing the productive in the name of helping the less fortunate.
A just and loving society, in other words, doesn't enshrine victimhood and doesn't see a contradiction between justice and compassion. Both are attributes of the living God but they shouldn't be confused.
For conservatives who are regularly pilloried by the religious left for their harsh, un-Godly attitudes, these sentiments should feel liberating – an appropriate reminder for this holy season in the ancient Biblical calendar, when we celebrate freedom from bondage and even from well-intended mistakes.
Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
To: The Chief Executive Officer of the Government Motors Corporation (GM) and the current resident of the White House.
Dear Mr. Obama:
I am the CEO and president of a small corporation located in the southern region of the Socialist Republic of California. Last month at a board meeting, one of the directors suggested that it was time for me to get a salary increase. I expressed my appreciation for their thoughtfulness but prevented the action from moving forward because I did not think it was timely. Besides, I have some questions that need to be answered before my board entertains that idea.
So, Mr. Obama, here are the questions. Will you be replacing me anytime soon? If not, is it O.K. with you if my board gives me a salary increase and, if so, how much? Please let me know A.S.A.P. Your quick response will be appreciated.
Ralph M. Petersen