Thursday, August 29, 2002

Environmentalist stupidity

I am as ever amazed by the stupidity that is espoused by environmentalists. With the "Earth Summit" over in South Africa, this is in the forefront of my thoughts. What do the Environmentalists want? And why do they want to take my rights away to achieve their desires? Here is a nice qoute showing some of their odd thoughts on the matter:
It’s about not using up our natural capital such as wilderness areas, forests, a fish stock or an aquifer...
I'm still trying to figure out how we can use up a renewable resource such as trees. Isn't the fact that they are called 'RENEWABLE' mean that they would never run out??

This doesnt really help for the environmentalist's credibility factor.

Also check this one out:
Americans represent 4.5 percent of the world’s population ... produce 25 percent of the world’s major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, amongst other wastes.
Did you know that the area of the US with the highest ozone level is the Appalachian Mountains? Yet there are no major cities, no major highways, just bunches and bunches of trees. Did you know that there is a stagnant brown cloud hovering over the India subcontinent? Created not by industries, not by cars, not by Western Civilization. Rather it is created by the burning of wood as a fuel source. Of course these facts are omitted when discussing environmental concerns.

These environmentalists hate America so much that they blame the world's trouble on America, and like so many other topics, conservatives sit back and ignore them. Instead of ignoring this, why do we not attack? Why do we not call them on these many errors in their way of thinking? Why do we huddle in defense and allow all these liberal thoughts, programs, and idiocy destroy our great nation.


Tuesday, August 27, 2002

Taking security a bit to far

There's a new product on the market. It's about the size of a wristwatch, with builtin cellular and gps technology. That's right your very own tracking device is now for sale. Or more specifically, the tracking device for your child is now on sale. For only about $500 and $30/month, you to can own one of these fine products. The first in a downward slide into the government knowing exactly where any of us are at any given time.

I do not like these.

What this does is teaches our children that it is ok for someone to keep track of them at all times. It teaches our children that Big Brother (if you don't know what I mean, go read Orsen Well's 1984) is good for them. This scares me to no end. I am a firm believer that government should never be trusted. I am a firm believer that I can take care of my family and myself better than the government. I am a firm believer that I know what is good for me, moreso than the government. Now liberals the world over are probably flipping over these statements, because they believe the government should do all those things for us. This little device is just another step in a series to destroy our privacy, and let the government know all that there is to know about you and me.

Scary, huh?


Sunday, August 25, 2002

The Unhappy Marriage.......Counselor

A little searching on the net has found out a rant just waiting to be hatched.

Again, here's the qoute of the day:

William Pinsof, a respected family therapist and editor of Family Process Journal, has just devoted a whole issue to the idea that preventing divorce is, well, a bad idea. "Divorce, Living Together Are New Norms," screamed the headline in USA Today. "It is time to move beyond thinking about the divorce rate as an indicator of a social disorder that must be reduced, to thinking about it more neutrally and inquisitively," Pinsoff writes. Divorce should be regarded as one of the "normal social events in the life course of modern families."
Besides the shock that rolls off me due to the incredible denseness of these statements, I can't help but wonder, "Why is this guy a marriage counselor?" I would think a marriage counselor would actively strive to keep people's marriage togethor. I would think that they would see a divorce as a great and mighty failure.

Apparently I was wrong.

Need I say this again? Marriage is ordained by God as THE covenant between a (again note singular) man, a woman and God. God gave no room for divorce. God gave no room for infidelity. When God created the marriage union, he didn't give Adam a choice, He said, "Adam, here's your wife, you'll be faithfull to her, she to you." It was simple.

It still is.

Marriage is a simple contract. You care for, love, comfort, have sex, talk with, and help your spouse. Are the roles in the marriage different for a man and a woman? Yeah, slightly, but when you get down to the nitty gritty basics, you are left with the most simple rule there is: Men - Treat your wife as Christ treats the church. Women - be a helpmate for you husband.

See now those aren't to hard are they?


Tuesday, August 20, 2002

The Sad Case of the Liberal-like Christ...

Here's an interesting example of this particular website: Gay Challenge to Fundamentalists

Now some of what it says is true. People with a homosexaul tendencies are required Biblically to have the same standards on promiscuity and adultery as heterosexuals. The unfortunate part is, they advocate homsexuality. No matter how you look at this topic, any sex outside of marriage (as defined by God during the creation as being between a man and a woman) is sin and a defilement of the body.

This website goes about telling you that it's ok, yet they never actually give scriptures backing themselves up. This website says gay marriages are ok, yet their "proof" is just wishy-washy emotionalism.

Yes, in his day, Jesus was a liberal. He preached on self-control, moderation, loving all people. But at the same time, HE never espoused sin. Yes, he forgave the prostitute, but He commanded her to "Go, and sin no more."

Here's an interesting qoute for you:
Directly informing this historic decision were Dr. Evelyn Hooker's demonstrations through psychological profiles that the psychiatric community was unable to distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals by any feature other than their orientations. Dr. Hooker's findings, eventually incorporated in a National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality Report, showed clearly that homosexuality did not imply pathology.Gay Today: Ex-Gays. Sandy Rapp

The Bible plainly teaches this. There is no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual.

Except a matter of a simple sin.

Labels: ,

Sunday, August 18, 2002

"We're not begging white people,'' said Farrakhan

It's time for a rant AGAINST Slave Reparations

Here's an excerpt from the above linked story:
Hundreds of blacks rallied in front of the Capitol on Saturday to demand slavery reparations, saying that compensation is long overdue for the ills of that institution.

"It seems that America owes black people a lot for what we have endured,'' Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan told the crowd. "We cannot settle for some little jive token. We need millions of acres of land that black people can build.''

"We're not begging white people,'' said Farrakhan, one of several speakers at a rally organizers billed as "Millions for Reparations.'' "We are just demanding what is justly ours.''

Why would my tax dollars be "justly" theirs? Were not the African-Americans offered land a number of years ago (yeah it was in Africa, but it was still land)?

But the ultimate question is this. Why should we, the people of today pay for the mistakes of the past?

Of course then you might say "Well they're taking about the government paying the reparations."

The obvious stupidity of that statement aside, the government is OF THE PEOPLE. The government is not a separate entity, it is a manifestation of the will of the majority of people. Besides, who do you think pays for the government? Is this money just created out of thin air? NO! The government gets all funds out of the pockets of its constituents. Whether those be businesses, farms, people, whatever, that's where the government gets both it's power and it's finances.

You know, I think I have come up with a way that I would agree to reparations. Anyone that wants them, can receive them, BUT, the money received for reparations would be taxable at 110% with that tax money set aside for military spending.

Labels: ,

Friday, August 9, 2002

Could it be a 1% Tolerance Policy?

Escambia County School District (FL) possesses a Zero-Tolerance Policy for students concerning both weapons and drugs, to the extent that both fingernail clippers and aspirin warrant suspension, if not expulsion. Yet this same school district has been ordered by an EEA arbitrator and a judge that a school teacher that was found to have a massive (50X a positive test result) dosage of cocaine in his body has to be rehired.

What type of message is this for students? Drugs are ok, if you're an adult?

If Mr. Sites is supposed to be a role model for students, should he not be held to the same rules and regulations that students are? Why should he have his job, working with children, when he has proven himself to be a criminal (drug usage is still a crime you know). But ultimately I blame the EEA, yes the teacher's union which originally threw fits about Sites being fired. Now tell me, whose interest is this in? The students? Mr. Sites? The union (can't collect union dues if the guy's fired)? I applaud Superintendent Paul for not going along with this. In my opinion, as a tax payer, voter, and soon-to-be parent in Escambia County, Mr. Sites has NO business having anything to do with children.

End of story.

Labels: , ,

The Church that was…or was it?

In today’s paper (August 8, 2002) there was a front-page story about the churches in my area building new buildings due to increasing membership. What is so different about my church that the members run away from it? Is it the cliques? Is it the indifference on the part of the senior leadership? Is it the soul-sapping melancholy that one feels as you walk through the doors? How can you institute change when the leaders refuse to listen? Is there anything we can do to change this? How can you break up cliques? How can you grow, when you refuse to offer classes dedicated to certain age groups? How can you grow, when you refuse to speak to people? Other Salvation Army Corps are growing by leaps and bounds, why not us? What is so different about the Pensacola Corps that we are stagnant and decaying? What is so wrong with us that we cannot work up the outrage over the gossip and the backbiting, and all those other small things that destroy us? Is it better to have a church of hundreds that cannot stand one another, or a church of ten where love is evident? I know which I would choose. I know which I wish my church were. The sad truth about the Pensacola Corps is that if my first experience with Christianity came from there, I would be asking, what’s the point? I thought Christian’s loved one another? At the start of this rant, I asked the question, why aren’t we growing? The sad truth is that that is not the proper question to be asking. The question that needs to be asked is, “Why aren’t we all loving one another?” The church will not grow unless its members love one another. Until that is fixed, we just have to sit there and smell the gangrene, or go find a new church.

How can we show love to sinners, when none wants to show love to the saints?