02/28/2007: This is why I am in love with the wonderful Ann Coulter. She just freaking nailed it, by pointing out not only the hypocrisy of the left, but also their Stalinist tendencies. In fact, modern Liberalism is Stalinism cross-dressed as societal compassion and environmental stewardship.
I pointed out that–by beating the drum that led to the ban of DDT–the Left ended up killing more people than Stalin and Mao combined. Coulter picks up and elaborates further on this line of reasoning:
Global warming” is the left’s pagan rage against mankind. If we can’t produce industrial waste, then we can’t produce. Some of us – not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess – are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukrainians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book “Silent Spring” written by … Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off “useless eaters.” If we have to live in a pure “natural” environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas – 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Too bad she won’t marry me!
02/26/2007: Well, that’s what some archeologists want you to believe anyhow.
About 13 years ago, I read a book by Paul Maier–A Skeleton in God’s Closet. Every serious student of Scripture should read it. The novel is constructed around the possibility that a team of archeologists found the tomb, with Jesus’ body unmistakably entombed. The book was fascinating, and I couldn’t put it down, and–let’s just say that what we are seeing now reminds me very much of that plot.
What do I think of it?
For one thing, anyone who thinks this is scientific proof that Jesus was just another human being is not being intellectually honest. Jesus–Yeshua–was a very common name in those days, as was Miriam. It would be like finding a tomb that had Robert and Kelly buried in it.
For another thing, one must keep a very keen Bravo Sierra indicator: when the evidence fits too well, something is amiss. Don’t think for one second that an archeologist–looking to stir up some controversy–would not be willing to plant “evidence” that makes for a groundbreaking “discovery”.
Pardon me, but my bulls*** indicator is going off the scale.
And that leads me to another point: people who wish to accept the premise–based on some very light “evidence”–that Jesus’ body has been found, aren’t even Christian.
Fact is, if one wishes not to believe in Jesus Christ, there will always be “reasons”. After all, a man’s ways always seem right to him, and we can always rationalize any level of evil. History bears this out.
Quite frankly, I put no stock in the Discovery Channel story, but–in all honesty–it will make for a nice starting point for Dan Brown’s sequel to The Da Vinci Code. Beyond that, the Christian faith is hardly shattered.
Jesus said the gates of Hell won’t prevail against the Church, so the renegade archeologists–and their amen corner among the militant atheists–aren’t worth the loss of any sleep.
…or at least that’s what the great men of faith at the Discovery Channel want you to believe.
Quite frankly, this is evidence that the publicity surrounding the Anna Nicole Smith soap opera is winding down, and news outlets are losing ratings. Ergo, they need news to report, so they recycle a 10-year-old non-story.
In the first century, this would have been a decisive rebuttal to any resurrection claims by Jesus’ followers, and the Romans would have been all-too-happy to drag the body through the streets of Jerusalem. This would have killed Christianity in the crib, as Jesus would have been another false messiah.
Perhaps this is one–of several–reasons why archeologists aren’t giving this story much weight.
Personally, this reminds me of the book A Skeleton in God’s Closet, by Paul Maier. I’m sure Dan Brown will use this to write his sequel to The DaVinci Code.
02/25/2007: The Phoenix New Times has a very riveting story about how a sexual predator–Neil Rodreick, age 29–enrolled into elementary school. Even worse was the complicity of his partners, Lonnie Stiffler (himself a convicted sex offender) and Robert Snow, in this. Stiffler was acting as the “grandfather” for the two “children” with whom he was sexually involved.
This shows the extent to which sexual predators will go to feast on children, and the level of vigilance that parents, educators, and law enforcement, must maintain to prevent that from happening.
Unfortunately, with the epidemic of teachers engaging in sex crimes, I can’t say that the educational establishment is up to the task.
02/24/2007: Rats take over a KFC.
02/24/2007: Anyone who has seen We Were Soldiers, or read the book We Were Soldiers Once…and Young, will appreciate the heroics of Maj. Bruce Crandall–whose call sign was Snakeshit–the helicopter pilot who flew in the ammo, and got the wounded and dead out of Ia Drang, in a very hot combat zone.
02/23/2007: If this is true, I will order a serving of crow, well-done.
02/22/2007: Anyone–especially a minister–who molests children or tolerates pedophiles among the ranks of the shepherds–is lower than scum and ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I could care less what denomination he represents: Catholic, Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or any shade thereof.
By now, we are well aware of the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, in which Church leaders at every level knowingly coddled child molesters and covered for them.
That this goes on among Southern Baptists should shock no one; while Southern Baptist ministers are more accountable to the membership than in the Catholic Church, the structure of the local church can still be constructed to intimidate those who would come forward and “rock the boat”.
This obviously does not happen at every church, but anyone who thinks this does not go on is smoking something that ought to be legal. It does go on; and it has gone on at some very high-profile churches, including Bellvue Baptist Church in Memphis, home of the late Adrian Rogers.
In fact, I hope the local authorities are investigating pastor Steve Gaines, who knew of the abuses of fellow minister Steve Williams, but neither took it to church leadership nor directed Williams’ son to the authorities, with ministerial support for the victim. As far as I am concerned, Gaines and Williams make Ted Haggard look like Mother Teresa.
If God causes fire and brimstone to consume those buildings, I’ll hold a celebratory feast.
To be fair, some SBC churches “get it”. At Highview Baptist–where I spent two years–they performed background checks on everyone. (I worked in the AWANA ministry, and they did one on me). They also had very strict rules–and enforced them diligently–regarding adult/child interaction, and also ministerial interaction with adults of the opposite sex.
Some might call that legalism, but those rules protected ministers, workers, adult parishioners, and children alike. I have my differences with Highview, but they are on the money on that issue.
Churches need to do such checks–and enforce similar accountability–for every prospective worker, teacher, deacon, preacher, and everyone who serves in a leadership capacity. If a church refuses to do that, then responsible members need to put their leaders’ feet to the fire and demand better.
I was at a church where–unknown to us–we had a child molester in our leadership. A background check would have been useless: the molester in this case had no prior criminal record. But personal references alone would have kept him out of any significant capacity within the church.
That person is now doing 20 years in prison, and let’s just say the church in question–while not guilty in this case (the abuses in this case happened after the molester left the church)–is now quite diligent about doing background checks.
In 2002, the SBC did what they do best: pass resolutions. In that case, they passed a resolution calling on churches to discipline ministers who engage in sexual abuse, and calling on them cooperate with authorities.
Excuse me, but that is lip-service. Surely the same denomination that removed seminary professors over Biblical inerrancy, abortion, homosexuality, and the ordination of women can DEMAND that churches adhere to a strict regimen of due diligence with respect to preventing sexual abuse.
A church that covers up sexual abuse should be kicked out of the convention.
02/22/2007: I have nothing to say regarding Anna Nicole Smith. She is dead, and I prefer to afford her the basic human dignities that I would want for myself had our roles been reversed. She made some very bad decisions, and now has no opportunity to make amends or receive atonement. For that, she gets my sympathy, as the circus act around her body does even more disservice to her.
That said, her former “boyfriend” (Larry Birkhead–who looks like Kato Kaelin, only Kato is a better actor) and “lawyer” (Howard K. Stern, who is a step down from the real Howard Stern) and “mother” (Virgie Arthur) are pure white trash.
Birkhead and Stern are not men; they are dogs in men’s bodies.
If Virgie Arthur had been a real mom, Anna Nicole would probably be alive today.
If I treated my cat the way they are treating Anna–and the surviving child Dannielynn–I’d be prosecuted for cruelty to animals.Which leads me to an important question: where the [expletive] is Child Protective Services?
The judge in the case–Larry Seidlin–is as useful as breasts on a boar hog: the hearings are supposed to pertain to the final disposition of Anna Nicole’s body, not the parentage of the child. He has already said that he will not order DNA tests; so any discussion of parentage in this case is moot. Yet, that is what the case has devolved into.Given that Anna Nicole was not married to either Stern or Blockhead, and it is likely that there was no common-law marriage involved, wouldn’t the “mother” get the body? (Can someone please explain the law on this matter?)
As for the child, any judge hearing the custody case needs to do the wise thing: remove custody from both Stern and Blockhead, and allow a real family to adopt Dannielynn.
02/21/2007: Last year, I provided significant coverage of the decision of Riverside Presbyterian Church of Linn Grove, Iowa, to secede from the Presbyterrorist Church USA.
The pastor–Russ Westbrook–is a friend of mine from my seminary days. Back then, the liberals were making their last stand, and Russ and I enjoyed debunking their nutball ideas.
Well, The Presbyterrorists have not given up their war against Westbrook and the faithful at Riverside. They continue to wage war against Riverside over a building that is worth $80,000, a parsonage that dates back to the 19th century, and membership records that will be as useful to the PCUSA as hemmorhoids.
This, of course, shows that the PCUSA is a bunch of petty secularists operating under a Gnostic veneer cross-dressed as Christianity.
As Westbrook points out, the PCUSA long-ago abandoned Biblical Christianity, embracing a secularized, quasi-spiritualist set of dogmatics that endorses funding Hezbollah, ordination of homosexuals–Ted Haggard…you’re in the wrong denomination!–and a complete disavowment of Biblical Trinarianism–Father, Son, Holy Spirit–in favor of :::and i’m not making this up::: Mother Child, and Womb.
This is what happens when Biblical liberalism prevails.
Meanwhile, Westbrook and the faithful of Riverside–no matter what the outcome in court–can look forward to real Christian fellowship.
CORRECTION: According to Westbrook, the chapel and grounds are probably worth $20,000.