Failed Bombing and Comedy Central

Continuing from yesterday’s post, we also had the failed bombing in New York’s Times Square. Once it became clear to the liberals that it wasn’t a crazed Tea Party member who was mad about healthcare, as theorized by Mayor Bloomberg, members of the media set out to explain how a misunderstood all-American Muslim boy could do such a thing. Perhaps CBS came up with the best twist, denying his training in a Pakistani terrorist camp, and postulating that his motive involved money pressure since he “Hasn't Realized Any American Dream”.

Speaking of unbelievable, the Obama representative to the UN stood by and watched while the United Nations elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women’s Rights. This should make women feel much safer, unless they have a suntan.

Finally, the Comedy Central network is planning a new animated cartoon about Jesus called “JC”. This comes only two weeks after the network banned the banned the show “South Park” from displaying an image, or even mentioning the name of the Muslim prophet Muhammed after receiving death threats from the “religion of peace” (h/t NewsBusters).

According to the Hollywood Reporter:

Comedy Central is set to announce "JC," a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City. In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city.

"In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable," said Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman. When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said it’s too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters. "We don't even know what the show is yet," he said.

Like all Comedy Central executives, Alterman declined to address the recent controversy over "South Park," where the network aired a heavily redacted episode after the show's creators were threatened by an extremist Islamic Web site.

So, Mr Alterman thinks it’s too early in the show's development to be concerned about offending Christians, but he’s ultra-sensitive about offending Muslims. Although one could argue for freedom of expression (which generally tends to be subjective according to one’s viewpoint), a great amount of discretion should be used with any religious figure, even those of the cults. We should be free to point out the errors in their actions and teachings, but should refrain from personal attacks on their person.

Spills and Floods

Whoa, has it been this long since I last posted? I’ve been working on a modern version of the Didache along with notes, commentary, and Scripture references, which was a very rewarding endeavor. Turning to our blog, I have some new posts about ready to load, but let's begin by catching up on a few events.

The one event to monopolize most of the media attention over the past couple of weeks has been the BP oil spill in the gulf. After vilifying President Bush for his perceived slow response to Katrina, the lamestream media yawned when Mr Obama took his time responding to the oil spill. The Dems finally swung into action, emailing supporters to "stand with President Obama to hold BP accountable", and oh yeah, while you’re at it, please send money. This could get interesting, since it was revealed the next day that Mr Obama is the biggest recipient of BP cash. Many dems have returned contributions to BP, but so far, Mr Obama has chosen to keep the money.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration finally sent a representative to view the flood situation in Tennessee. I kept waiting for Nancy Pelosi to demand that Mr Obama rush the money “that we owe these people” as she did to President Bush during the New Orleans flood. I was shocked that Ms Pelosi used the words “that we owe them” instead of “that we should send as a charitable act” or similar. I wasn’t shocked by her “owe me” mentality, only that she chose to use the words in publicly. According to Ms Pelosi, if certain people experience misfortune, the government "owes" them taxpayer money. It certainly wasn’t a surprise when most of the media spiked the comment to protect Ms Pelosi. Perhaps Mr Obama wasn’t as concerned about the Tennessee victims, since they were regular middle class working folks who cling to their guns and religion during times of crisis, rather than looking to the god of government for a bailout.

Let's continue to pray and help our friends in the Tennessee and neighboring states. As a Texan, I'll always be grateful for the brave volunteers who fought and died alongside our ancestors at the Alamo.

Arizona Acts on Immigration while Feds Sit

The state of Arizona is on a roll. Last week, they approved a measure that would require US presidential candidates to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president in order to appear on the state’s ballot. Now, due to years of inaction by the feds, they were forced to act on their own by passing an immigration bill. Governor Jan Brewer correctly stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix". Sister Toldjah has the latest developments.

The usual radicals on the left are predictably up in arms, claiming that illegals are being discriminated against by being forced to follow the law. They further claim that, being asked to show an id if they are acting suspicious is degrading and a violation of their “civil rights”. I guess being in the country illegally is now a guaranteed civil right. We’re hearing accusations of apartheid, Nazism etc, but if I understand the bill correctly, it borrows most of its language from existing federal laws. I find nothing in the Arizona state law that was not already in place before. The net difference appears to be that, state agencies are now forced to do the job the feds refuse to do. Mr Obama and the feds are calling for all this new immigration “reform”, but we could save a lot of taxpayer dollars by just enforcing what is already in the existing laws.

So, it becomes obvious that our federal government doesn’t want the existing immigration laws enforced, and we can’t lay the blame exclusively on the democrats either. Both parties have talked about immigration issues for decades, but neither has produced any action. Perhaps, Cal Thomas best explains the situation:

Let's get something straight. The failure to protect America's southern border has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats want more illegal immigrants in the country because they are a potential source of votes they hope will contribute to a permanent Democratic majority. Republicans and their donors want more illegal immigrants in America because they are a source of cheap labor. Once you understand this, you can ignore much of the talk about "human rights."

If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order… According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as of 2007, there are about 475,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona straining an already overburdened economy. Taxpaying citizens must underwrite the cost of schooling for their children, as well as visits to emergency rooms. In California, several hospitals have had to close because they could no longer afford to give free care to non-citizens. Gangs in Arizona operate under the command of drug lords in Mexico. This and other criminal activity threaten the peace and security of Arizonans and potentially all American citizens. Is this something that must be endured for the sake of "human rights groups" and "immigration rights groups", or is it long past time to slow the flow?

The Arizona legislature and Governor Brewer have correctly chosen to slow the flow. They realize a state and a nation unwilling to protect their borders cannot hope to preserve qualities that have made this country what it is, but won't be for much longer if we permit this illegal invasion to continue.

While lawmakers in other states, such as Texas and Alabama, have called for similar state laws, the liberal state of California is going all-out to oppose the bill. The mayor of San Francisco has banned city employees from traveling to Arizona, and the city attorney called for a discontinuation of any business transactions. Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov Schwarzenegger, saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state's contracts with Arizona. Here's a portion of Steinberg's letter:

The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy. [Taxpayer dollars should support our own amnesty programs instead.] For that reason, I respectfully request that you provide me with information about all existing and proposed contracts between the state of California and any businesses or governments in Arizona.

Mr Schwarzenegger has not yet replied to Steinberg, but passed the responsibility back to the federal government. "I urge the federal government to get their act together," the governor said in a news conference. His spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Schwarzenegger does not support the Arizona law, but they need to review the impact a boycott would have on California's "budget and job creation-effort”.

There’s also that pesky problem of finding another state to accept their IOUs.

That said, if we survive Mr Obama’s “De-development of America”, we’re planning an Arizona vacation this year. Hope to see you there.

Arizona Seeks to Legalize the US Constitution

Last week, the state of Arizona approved a measure that would require US presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. The White House predictably ridiculed the vote and the media immediately jumped to his defense, stating that he had already released his “birth certificate”. This, of course, is a typical subtle deception by the media. What Obama has released is a Certificate of Live Birth, a streamlined version which omits lots of information and basically says that the person named was born (somewhere).

I’ve not followed the details of this eligibility issue closely, but certain aspects smell a bit fishy. Opponents claim that this is just a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I wonder if money would be an issue if George W Bush’s birthplace had been in question. Taxpayer dollars don't seem to be an issue when it comes to HealthCare, Climate Change, Globalization or other socialistic goals on Mr Obama’s agenda. If money is the issue, why would Mr Obama spend about a million dollars to suppress the release? If Mr Obama’s worshipers are concerned about taxpayer dollars, I’m sure there are many private citizens who would pony up the $20 or so to pay any state of Hawaii fees required for the release. I would think that Mr Obama would want to put this issue behind him so that he could place his full attention to the matter of nationalizing the remainder of the private sectors of the country

In addition, I would think the state of Hawaii would also want the issue resolved, yet in response to the Arizona legislation, a Hawaii conference committee unanimously voted to advance a bill to the House and Senate that would allow the state to ignore additional requests for President Obama's birth certificate.

Most families possess or have access to their certified birth certificate. It is required in obtaining a driver’s license, passport or in many other transactions, even signing up your child for little league baseball. Why is it not required to hold the highest office in our land?

That all said, my overriding question is “why is this Arizona bill even necessary”? Have we come to the point where states must pass bills in order to legalize the Constitution? Article 2 Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Us Constitution reads:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Is this part of the constitution no longer valid? Does the radical left even recognize the constitution anymore other than to support the killing of babies or the banning of Christianity? Article 2 Section 1 closes with the following:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It’s time for Mr Obama to take his oath seriously.

Ben Stein: Same Old Liberals, Then and Now

Ben Stein, in addition to dispensing financial advice, writes a weekly article for the American Spectator. During the Gerald Ford administration, Mr Stein was working as a consultant for Norman Lear’s show, All’s Fair. Recently, he published a memorandum that he had written to the creators of the show in 1976 regarding the nature of liberals.

As I read the Mr Stein’s memo, I was amazed at the consistency between liberals then and liberals now. Except for a few specifics, such as references to hippies and the Soviet Union (just substitute Islamic terrorism), I would have guessed that it could have been written yesterday instead of over 30 years ago. Here are a few excerpts:

What I don't like is the way rich liberals, who have made their money through the operations of the capitalist system, are nevertheless socialists. I suspect that a large part of their motivation is a style of asceticism which has been fashionable among the rich since the time of the Pharisees. Another motivation for the rich liberals to dislike the capitalist system is that they have already gotten theirs and they don't want to be challenged by other people coming along and getting theirs.

I don't like the way liberals of any income group assume that they have a monopoly on morality and that the only conscionable position on issues is their position… I especially resent the claims of white liberals that they know best about how to solve the problems of the poor and the black. There is hardly any evidence that liberal programs to help the poor and the black have done much good. The ordinary operations of the capitalist system, however, have made enormous gains economically for the poor and the black. Liberals don't seem to understand that if they take a dollar from one person and give it to another, there is rarely any benefit. If the economic system produces new dollars for everyone, everyone benefits.

I resent the influence that liberals have gotten over our educational system. Even in those schools which are other than jungles of fear, students don't learn anything. Liberal parents and teachers who have seized control of the schools teach "Sensitivity" and ''Interpersonal Relations" to children who barely know how to read and write because the basics have been so badly neglected.

I resent the idea that labor unions are the workingman's best friend. Unions too often just represent the organized few and raise their wages so high that the unorganized many cannot find work… Similarly, I get mad especially about the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a device guaranteeing that those people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage will remain unemployed. It does not raise any one's real wage because if an employee were worth the minimum wage, he would have been paid it already. For example, every time the minimum wage is raised or its coverage broadened, the number of unemployed black teenagers rises dramatically.

I am annoyed at the condescending way liberals look at religion and patriotism. Both of those are forces which make a people work and sacrifice for others and are genuine altruistic forces. Yet liberals scoff at them. Liberals should try to think whether this country could have been built without a sense of mission greater than the love of government money. In fact, liberals ought to think whether or not their own feelings do not constitute a religion of sorts before they make fun of others' religious practices… Other examples of the liberals' double standard are their attitude towards criminals. Their hearts bleed without limit for the poor misguided youth who has just killed or raped or beaten a perfectly innocent person but they don't care a damn about the victims of the crime..

The liberal wants to make a state in which people who have worked hard and abided by the rules are taxed to death to pay for those who do not work at anything except reproducing themselves. The liberal wants a state in which the middle classes bear the brunt of all social change, while the liberals sit back with their union pay, or university pay, or inherited pay, or money they have gotten from the system they hate, and watch the action.

Another instance of the liberals' lack of concern with real compassion is their attitude about environmental issues. No one doubts that there are important environmental problems. But there are also people whose jobs depend on taking a close look at environmental issues and not running off half-cocked whenever a cockroach is threatened.

I resent the liberals' looking the other way whenever there is a threat to decency or peace from the Communist nations and refusing to take seriously threats to our security from countries and movements which openly plan to destroy us… In a similar vein, I resent the way liberals condescend to people in the military as mentally inferior warmongers and brutes… I resent the constant liberal putdown of what is American and praise of what is foreign…

Read the entire memorandum here.

National Day of Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional

The following is an excerpt from the Washington Times this past week:

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the country's National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb said the statute that created the National Day of Prayer violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion. Judge Crabb, a 1979 appointee of President Carter, wrote in her decision that "some forms of 'ceremonial deism,' such as legislative prayer, do not violate the establishment clause." But she said the National Day of Prayer goes too far.

"It goes beyond mere acknowledgment of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she said. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience." In her ruling, the judge said she understood that many might disagree with her conclusion and some could view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray.

"That is unfortunate," she said. "A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort 'to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possibly in a pluralistic society.'"

So, this activist judge says that she’s attempting to preserve religious liberty by banning the National Day of Prayer. Judge Crabbe is either grossly ignorant of the Founders’ original intent for the Constitution, or is deliberately attempting to continue the eradication of God from our society. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she’s merely misguided, let’s briefly examine the “separation of church and state” issue, on which these decisions are based.

Read the entire National Day of Prayer article.

Tax Day 2010 Thoughts

I just finished paying my taxes on time, so I guess that disqualifies me for the next opening in Mr Obama’s administration. I resisted the impulse to enter “two million” under the number of dependents, a very conservative estimate of the number of people receiving entitlements from working people’s tax dollars. This is not a knock on all who are receiving government aid. I realize there are many who would rather be working than caught up in the administration’s "De-industrialization of America" plan.

Speaking of the Obama administration, the Bidens just released their tax return, showing that they gave 1.44% ($4820) out of their $333,000 income to charity last year. By comparison, independent reports place the average family's donations at 3.1%, and according to IRS statistics, those making over $200,000 give an average of $20,500 to charity.

Actually, 2009 was a big increase in the Vice-President’s charitable giving. The previous year, he gave only 0.69% ($1885 out of $269,256), but even this was above his track record. After Mr Obama picked him as a running mate, Mr Biden eventually released his tax returns from the previous decade (1998 – 2007). During this period, the Bidens gave only $120 - $995 per year on incomes ranging from $210,432 - $321,379, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income (in 1999, he gave a whopping $120 on an income of almost $211,000). So, on a total income of about $2.5 million, the Bidens contributed less than $3700 to charity. In contrast, Sarah Palin gave more in 2006 alone (on about half the income) than Joe Biden gave in a decade. In case anyone is wondering, John McCain gave an average of about 28% of his income to charity in 2006-7.

The reason I mention Mr Biden’s charitable giving (or lack of) is due to a couple of statements he made in the fall of 2008 in an attempt to justify the raising of taxes on the rest of us. Many of us remember Mr Biden’s claim that those who are not willing to pay higher taxes were being unpatriotic. Later that day, instead of backing off his idiotic statement, he claimed paying higher taxes was not only a patriot duty, but a religious one as well. He told a labor union group, “Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.” (I find it interesting that he's made no mention of what Catholic social doctrine says about murdering unborn babies, but that’s another story.) I heartily agree that we all have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those who can’t help themselves, but this should be the voluntary role of the Church and individuals, not the government. In the end, Mr Biden appears to support charitable giving, as long as he can pick the pockets of others to do so.

Turning to another tax subject, it was also reported in the past few days that about 47% of US households pay no taxes. At the same, a recent poll reports that about 47% of the respondents approve of the job that the Obama administration is doing. Naah… must be just a coincidence…right?

I’d also like to plug an article over on Big Government, collecting a Top Ten List of Anti-tax Quotations . Finally, I’d like to add one that a hero of mine, the late great Adrian Rogers, offered in 1984 from his message “God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom”.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

Easter 2010 - Behold the Savior

Two years ago, I wrote a story relating to the First Easter, centered on Barabbas. This year, I'm featuring a true story about Sam, who was orphaned as a young child, grew up in poverty, and became a very unpopular Anglican preacher. If you think unpopular preachers have a hard time today, his parishioners maimed his livestock, burned his crops, and finally torched his house. After Sam thought everyone had escaped the fire, he looked back to see his terrified five year old son peering through the glass of an upstairs window.

Read the entire Behold the Savior article, including a Paul Harvey type "Rest of the Story", its place in church history, and a great Easter hymn.

Christ in the Passover

Today marks the official beginning of the eight-day Jewish Pesach, or Passover. Like other Jewish holidays however, Passover actually commenced at sundown yesterday. Since Passover begins each year on the 14th day of Nisan according to the Jewish lunar calendar, it varies in relationship to Easter each year, which is aligned with the solar calendar and falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon that follows the vernal equinox.

I had the privilege and blessing this weekend to meet Bruce Rapp over at Plano Bible Chapel this weekend. Mr Rapp, who heads up the Phoenix branch of Jesus for Jesus, was in town to present Christ in the Passover, in which he walked though a Jewish Passover Seder (complete with table and traditional Passover items), and clearly demonstrateed the links between the Pesach and Christ as the Lamb of God. JFJ currently has dozens of members traveling and presenting the Seder (Passover feast), so please check the their website for times and locations, or to view the video.

The Pesach is celebrated annually by the Jews to commemorate their deliverance from bondage in Egypt. After the Egyptian Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites travel to the Promised Land, God sent a series of plagues in order to force him to let His people go. The tenth and final plague involved the death of each firstborn male child in the land. At the Lord’s instruction however, the Israelite families sacrificed an unblemished male lamb and covered their doorposts with the lamb’s blood. Thus, when the Lord’s angel came, he “passed over” and spared those who were protected by the blood of the lamb. This account, recorded in Exodus 12, foreshadows how Jesus, our Passover Lamb (Jn 1:29, 1Cor 5:7) shed His own blood on the cross to protect all believers from spiritual death.

While Y’shua (Jesus) as the sacrificial lamb is the fulfillment of all the Passover represents as a whole, each individual portion of the ceremony also points to the Jewish Messiah. For example, just after the main meal, we come to the Afikomen (dessert) and the third of four cups, called the Cup of Redemption. The Afikomen consists of a piece of matzah (bread without chametz – “yeast” or “leaven”) that was broken off and hidden (Heb tzafun) before the meal for the children to search out and find after the meal. The eating of the matzah, representing the broken body of Christ, and the drinking from the cup, reminding us of His spilled blood, should be familiar to Christians. We perform this same ceremony when celebrating the Eucharist (or Communion), which Jesus instituted at the Last Supper (Lk 22:19-20). In addition, the hiding and bringing forth of the matzah pictures Jesus’ body being hidden in the grave, and His coming forth from the dead.

Whenever I see or participate in a Seder, as element after element continues to paint a clear picture of Christ, I always ask myself, why can’t our Jewish friends see this? (Of course, we can also ask the same question of non-Jewish unbelievers concerning God’s other revelations). We could offer many theological answers, but I like to suggest a couple of practical reasons. First, many Jews are cultural rather than religious Jews. That is, they go through the steps because of tradition, without even understanding the Jewish meaning of the ceremonies.

Second, for those who are religious Jews, most believe that being Jewish or being a Christian is mutually exclusive. In other words, by becoming a Christian, they are no longer Jewish. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus was a Jew. The first Christians, including all the writers of the NT (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews. To accept the Jewish Messiah Y’shua as one’s personal Savior makes one a complete and fulfilled Jew.

Before I end this post, I’d like to say a big “Thank You” to the folks over at Plano Bible Chapel who hosted this event. PBC is a friendly and growing church in East Plano (Texas). I thoroughly enjoyed meeting and speaking with Pastor Larry, who made my wife and I feel right at home. The true church is one body with Christ as the head, but the Scriptures also place great importance on the local assemblies. Our first loyalty (after Christ of course) should be to our home church, but I also enjoy and even benefit from visiting other churches once in a while. It’s always amazing to see the different ways that God is working through various people. I was especially impressed by PBC’s commitment to the historical doctrines of the Christian faith, which have been pushed aside by many churches in a misguided attempt to be “more relevant” to modern society. It was also exciting to see the many missions in which the church is involved, including support for the Jewish people. While the mega-churches receive most of the Christian press, God is doing many great things in the smaller churches. I look forward to returning again soon.

The First Christians

This is the second post regarding the open forum that we held in our Sunday School class a few weeks ago, which was opened up to any questions related to Christian doctrine, difficult passages in the Bible, or any other moral, ethical or family related issues.

This article looks at the raised questions of "Were the Catholics the first Christians?" and if not, "Who were the first Christians"? As I mentioned in the previous post, these questions involve some speculation, so once again, in the spirit of open forums, I've placed a link at the end of the article for those who would like to return to the post and comment.

Read the entire The First Christians article.