Saturday, December 31, 2005

Being Literal When It Comes to the Bible

There are times when certain people must take things for the way they are. When reading the Bible, read it as it is, not as if it were encoded by God so that you will have to spend weeks analyzing a single verse. True, the Bible can be confusing at times, but a significant portion of it presents itself in a "take it as it is" format. But there are some people that take the Bible for what they want it to be.

The Rev. Monica Corsaro, ecumenical campus minister at the University of Washington, said it was erroneous to use scripture critical of homosexuality as the basis for withholding support for gay rights. "We can't be literalists when it comes to interpreting scripture," said Corsaro, who also is co-chairwoman of the Religious Coalition for Equality. "It's not the perfect word of God. It's heretical to superimpose 21st-century context and values on first-century context and values."

Being literal when it comes to the Bible is essential for reading it. While I don't condemn homosexuals, I cannot refuse to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality IS a sin. It is an abomination to God and should not be tolerated. Now, I'm not saying that we should take all gays and lesbians outside and stone them to death, but allowing an evil to continue because someone believes they love this person is still an evil.

"It's hard to get around what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality,"
Hutcherson said. "We believe in an inerrant word of God. That means there's no
mistake. Biblical truth overrides culture and time."Lapin said it was "chilling" to imply that "those who wish to echo the words from Leviticus, spoken from Sinai three millennia ago, should be suppressed."

It is hard to get around what Leviticus said, particularily the part where it speaks directly against homosexuality. Need further proof, but don't follow the Old Testament? Here is a verse to consider:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27

This seems blatantly obvious to me that God hates homosexuality (not the homosexual). Remember, God loves all people, gay or straight, but he does not tolerate sinful acts from anyone.

I find it astounding that some people feel that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality and continue to use it as a means of justifying their behavior. Gays should not have the right to marry. A society that has embraced homosexuality has always fallen (Sodom and Gommorah, for example). Tolerance is one thing, but openly embracing something is an other. I don't have to tolerate what homosexuals believe, but I'm not going to shout curses at them.

There are no in-betweens when it comes to the Bible. It means what it means.



Friday, December 30, 2005

Arabs Demand Israeli Expulsion from Israel

Gee, what a surprise:

"It is time for you [Israelis] to be gone. Live wherever you like, but don't live among us. It is time for you to be gone. Die wherever you like, but don't die among us. We have the past here. We have the present, the present and the future… So leave our country, our land, our sea, our wheat, our salt, our wounds. Everything. And leave the memories."

The absurdity of this statement is apparent, as the Arabs blather on about how they somehow deserve Israel. They have no past there, other than the Arab conquest of the land in the 7th century. The land was God's gift to Israel, not Ishmael. But, one should not be surprised by this. The Bible says that the descendents of Ishmael will hate and fight with their brother, and so they have lived up to this prophecy.

The way they demonstrate their hatred for Jews makes them look like pawns of the devil. They don't realize that they are merely tools, fulfilling what God proclaimed millenia ago. Other than this, they have no viable reason to despise the Jews.

Let us compare the land of the Arabs to the land of the Jews:

Arab lands

Jewish land (the small yellow country)

Arab lands (sq. miles): 5 million square miles (excluding Pakistan, Indonesia and smaller countries; Arab lands occupy 99.8% of the land if we include Israel, making them 500 times larger than Israel)
Israel: 10,000 square miles (including all of its territories and land)

The Arabs have nearly two dozen countries (22); each of those countries are vastly larger than Israel. Why is this small patch of dirt worth killing each other over? .2% of the Arab Empire belongs to Israel! The Arabs have their land, let Israel have their own.

Their is something within the human heart (particularily in the Arabs) that demands that the Jews be hated. For no reason, other than them being Jews and God's chosen people, they have been despised for millenia. And while they remain in the most volatile corner on earth, they have remained powerful, highly intelligent and capable. Iran needs to think twice before it considers attacking Israel.



Thursday, December 29, 2005

Thus Saith The Feminist: An Unborn Baby is a Parasite

"Even if we argue that fetuses are entirely separate beings, why should women be required to carry those beings to term, and to allow them to live off of their bodies without their consent? How would this be considered fair, ethical or moral in any other area of medicine or law?" (Feministe)

How is it moral? Biblical or secular? Biblical, its moral because God values human life and it is not for us to take, especially the life of someone as innocent as an unborn baby. Psalm 139 says that "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." So, reading the Bible would obviously point towards a pro-life position.

Secular: there are no morals. Law of the jungle. Might makes right. If someone is able to murder someone else because they can, then that's the way to go. Nobody higher than us makes the morals so we do what we choose. No amount of saying "well humans are capable of making morals" can change the fact that "I am stronger than you, thererfore, I don't have to obey you." If someone wants to murder their unborn baby, their toddler, their teenager, or grandparent, then by all means allow this. Sound inhumane? Why? No is technically alive anyway. And besides, there are no morals. I am justified in every way.

Which one sounds more "ethical?" Obviously you cannot have ethics without someone higher than you making the morals and ethics. If humans are the ones that get to decide when someone is alive, then lets consult the nihilistic windbag known as Peter Singer. Or perhaps a rabid pro-death individual. Or perhaps a murderer. All three offer differing opinions, but why should I care?

Feministe is defending a cause that remains illogical, from a Christian perspective. Obviously it is justifiable from a secular perspective. Any Christian trying to argue with a pro-death person, saying that abortion is wrong is basically fighting a lost cause because the secularists do not believe in a God that values life. If a Christian supports abortion, they need to reread Pslam 139 for further information.

Note: Abortion has murdered more than 45 million babies since 1973. That is nearly seven Holocausts. If abortion is not murder, then murder is not evil. Simple as that.



Islam Equals Tolerance; Christianity Equals Violation

The Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.

There is one thing that strikes me as odd about this: Islam is allowed to be preached in schools, but the Pledge of Allegiance (with just two "questionable" words in it: under God) cannot be said. The Five Pillars of Faith can be completed, but praying to the Lord is outlawed. Writing banners for Islam is accepted, but wearing Christian shirts is strictly forbidden. Jihad games are played, but Christmas plays are offensive. Crescents are allowed, while Crucifixes are shunned. And reading the Quran is primary, while the Bible is despised and spit upon.

I recognize the fact that America is not a Christian country and hasn't been one for decades, but this goes way beyond "Are you kidding me". Any mildly observant individual with functioning brain tissue should be able to recognize that if Islam is accepted, then certainly Christianity must be accepted as well. If America was even remotely interested in caring about Christians or for that matter, showing fairness, Christianity would be included. Sadly, America will not allow this all because of a minority that now overpowers the majority.

In December 2003, the San Francisco court determined the school district had not violated the Constitution. In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.

Had not violated the Constitution? Apparently, making students pray to a false god is not a violation, but merely a learning experience. This just keeps getting better and better! Not only is the San Francisco court (a city in the Enlightened West) accepting that Islam being taught does not violate the constituation, but it is requiring students to be taught Islam. Christianity, predictably, is stated as being a violation of separation of church and state. That God-forsaken phrase is not only not found in the constitution, but in fact is found in the reverse.

Idiocy, apparently, is a required course when seeking to serve at the San Francisco court. Ludacris as it is, these people still see themselves as self-righteous, arrogant, morality-dispensers, finding no fault in teaching one religion over the other. Either you teach all, or you teach none. Frankly, I don't expect the second one to be available much longer. The first one (excluding Christianity) is the most likely choice.

One thing people need to understand is America is not a Christian. While I think that if it really were, Christianity would be included in public schools in a heartbeat, but since its not, one should not be surprised that this happened. In trying not to offend the Muslims, we have sold over our ability to make free choices. Americans need to wake up and understand that the terrorists would kill every single American if they had the chance. When they called us "The Great Satan" they didn't say "excluding California , Democrats, and Feminists who support Islam." They meant EVERYONE. Trying to calm your enemy by embracing his beliefs does nothing, only makes you like them.

By trying to embrace equality, they have further pushed themselves down a road of a moral degeneration and injustice.



Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Toronto Experriences Surge In Gun Violence; Oh the Irony!

A city that prides itself as one of the safest in North America is bewildered by a surge in violence that has produced a record number of shooting deaths this year, the latest a 15-year-old girl on a street filled with holiday shoppers. Canada's prime minister and Toronto's mayor blame weapons smuggled in illegally from the United States, but others point to a growing gang problem. Whatever the cause, Canadians recoiled Tuesday after a gunbattle the previous day in Toronto left the teenage bystander lying dead and six other people wounded in a street near a popular shopping mall. It was the 52nd death inflicted by a firearm this year in Canada's biggest city, which is nearly twice as many as last year and raised the overall
homicide toll to 78 _ not far below the record 88 homicides of 1991.

This is what the Syndicate likes to call "a tragic irony." It's ironic, isn't it, that the country that despises firearms is now baffled by the dramatic increase in violence? I'm not a fan of violence, but something has got to click here when these people see the number of dead, unarmed civilians coming into the morgue. The country despises private gun ownership, which is a sure-fire way to make yourself dependent on the inept government institution to secure your defense. And they've done a marvelous job on their own!

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he complained.

But, just so they can explain the problem, they blame the U.S. That's always the first stop of a country that has problems and doesn't know why. Surely it must be the American pigs that have caused some manner of imperfection to enter into my life!

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control and a criminal justice
professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, said a broad-based approach is needed to deal with violence. She advocates a visible presence of officers in communities where guns are a problem, a strong show of partnership between police, religious and community leaders, and a restoration of social and recreational programs lost due to government spending cuts a decade ago.

Maybe you should just call in the military to start patrolling the towns, arrest anyone that looks suspicious, and strip them of their rights? No? Well that's what you're developing into Canada.

They still have not made the connection. When someone has a way to defend themselves (ex. a firearm), and the criminal knows that a majority of citizens own one, the criminals will be far less likely to attack someone. It's just that simple. Criminals value their lives more than the property they intend to steal. Now, when criminals know that most citizens don't have weapons, there will be a surge of violence as the criminals see they have a lot of unarmed prey to be robbed/raped/murdered.

The unusual thing is citizens aren't the ones committing the crimes, criminals are. The people that view themselves as "outside of the law." What makes you think that they will listen to the law if they've worked so hard to ignore it by robbing or murdering people? Will they so readily turn in their weapons? I don't think so. Citizens may, but criminals won't.

And we all know that citizens are the violent ones, not the murderers.



Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Strong Woman or Whining Feminist

As requested on the wishlist, Jeff Goldstein sent me the Christina Hoff Sommers canon for Xmas. I am now under the charge of reading Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys over my Xmas vacation. If I don’t get so angry that I
throw the books in the driveway and back over them four or five times in the Jeep,
I’ll likely do a brief series on my reactions to the books.

It never fails to amuse me how many times feminazis tend to discredit everything they read or said by somebody who disagrees with them, by either responding with a dramatic display of weakness (ex. threatening to throw-up/vomit or run things over with a truck) or insulting them (ex. saying, "You're stupid" with no justifiable reason).

But, I have to give them credit for their accomplishments: they've managed to avoid answering tough questions for a long time. If I could do the opposite and avoid listening to mindless rabble by airhead feminists, then I'd be in good shape. However, since Feministe has a tendency to insult/demean her adversaries, ignoring this would make life far less amusing.

Maybe they could care to prove their strength by not taking offense at everything said or not insulting everyone. Believe me, you'll probably come out wiser or at least slightly less stupid.



Monday, December 26, 2005

Praying In The Name of Jesus

It was the Saturday before Christmas in 2002, and she said she watched as a four-wheel-drive pickup crashed into a car driven by a dentist from La Crosse.

The dentist, she said, had no pulse when she helped the First Responders pull him from the wreckage. So she placed her hand on his forehead and prayed over him: "In the name of Jesus I pray you do this thing today, not because I am worthy, but because you are able, that they would know you are alive."

"In the name of Jesus Christ, I speak life to you," Meadows Gwidt said, recalling her words. "In the name of Jesus Christ, I speak breath to you."

The man's chest heaved as he took a breath, she said, "like he was jolted. And he opened his eyes and squeezed my hand, and said, 'What is this?'"

"I'm looking at my miracle right now," she said in an interview Friday. Craig, now 4, is the sixth child of seven pregnancies. Elsen, 42, and her husband, Kenneth, 39, consider him a miracle child because of how hard he fought for his life at birth.

He was born with a rare condition called persistent pulmonary hypertension. It occurs in some newborns when the blood vessels of the lung do not adjust normally during the transition to breathing air at birth.

Infants with the disorder usually have at least one of two heart valves shut at birth.

Both of Craig's were open.

"That's why he is truly a miracle," she said. "I would say that God definitely intervened. It was God's miracle that healed him."

"We're not above him," she said. "We're still people, and he does miraculous things." The man's mother called Meadows Gwidt a couple of months after the crash to thank her, she said. "I just kept telling her, 'It wasn't me,'" Meadows Gwidt said. "'It was God.'"

"I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20b

A miracle, not an unexplainable phenomenon that mysteriously occured as she prayed. It's faith and prayer that saved the man and her son.



Australians Willing to Give-Up Freedoms For Security

EVERYONE should be made to carry a national ID card as fears mount of a terrorist strike in Melbourne, a Herald Sun survey has found. And Premier Steve Bracks has been served a sharp warning that many Victorians are prepared to vote against him at next year's election. Many people also want junk food scrapped from school takeoffs amid soaring childhood obesity rates.

Are the Australians just begging for a 1984-scenario to occur? 1984, as I have said in earlier posts, is a book by George Orwell about a society where the government controlled and monitored everything. There were no privately owned weapons, no privacy, everyone was suspicious of everyone else, a society similar to today's.

The Australians have long since eradicated the notion of privately owned firearms. Despite the increasing crime rates, homicides, and violent crimes, Australians still firmly believe that they are safer now that ordinary citizens don't have weaponst to defend themselves. But naturally, this is not enough. Trading in freedoms for security is apparently a must-have on today's Christmas wish list for the Australians, as an overwhelming majority of them voted that the ID cards should be mandatory, about 2/3 believed that.

Here's another interesting thing to note:

Women were more fearful than men that Melbourne was a target.

Women and older Victorians were the most willing to trade freedoms for security, the survey shows.

Vox Day was correct when he said that women were more fearful than men and were the biggest supporters for trading freedoms. The fear they have over this is tremendous. Of course, if I didn't have any means to defend myself adequately (ex. Firearms), I would fearful too.

The Syndicate has kept a close watch on Australia and is frankly surprised at the way it is deteriorating. When people place themselves at the mercy of the government, they give them power to control themseves, they are willing to trust Big Brother instead of taking their own defense into their own hands. Like O'Reilly said, if you ever count on the government for anything, you will be disappointed. What happens if Australia is attacked even with all of these new "security measures?" Will they trade in more liberties? Or will they wise up and start defending themselves?



Saturday, December 24, 2005

False Christs Shall Appear

A Manhattan man's holiday spirits soared to celestial heights Friday when a judge gave him permission to change his name to Jesus Christ. Jose Luis Espinal, 42, of Washington Heights, said he was "happy" and "grateful" that the judge approved the change, effective immediately. Espinal said he was moved to seek the name change about a year ago when it dawned on him, "I am the person that is that name."

The judge said she held a hearing in which Espinal, who also uses the last name Tejeda, testified. She said he was aware of the "common law right to assume another name without legal proceedings so long as the change is not made to deceive or perpetrate a fraud or to avoid an obligation" but wanted to go the formal route anyway. The judge said Espinal's "reasons were primarily those applicable to his own private religious beliefs and he stated no desire to use his proposed name to secure publicity, to proselytize, to fund-raise or advise others that he had been cloaked by the courts or government with a religious authority." Espinal, who is unemployed and unmarried and has no children, said, "This was not done for any reason other than I am that person. You're dealing with the real deal."

"At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." Matthew 24:23-25

There's not much more I can say after reading that article.


Erick speaks

"American Hiroshima"

The U.S. government has been monitoring radiation levels at more than 100 mosques, homes, businesses and other sites in and around the nation's capital and at least five other cities since Sept. 11, 2001, providing further evidence law enforcement officials suspect terrorists have secreted nuclear or radiological weapons inside the country.

For years it had been known that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack the United States in what calls "American Hiroshima." The plan was to insert several thousand sleepr agents through the Mexican border, using the help of the notorious MS-13 gang, bringing in several suitcase nukes and nuclear warheads to kill an estimated 4 million people. The attack would "alter the course of history."

The cities the US government was worried over are Philapdelphia, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, Seattle, Miami, San Francisco, Boston, and Washington. The attacks were supposed to include the destruction of seven cities, crippling the economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Al-Qaeda wants to do this, is trying to do this, but what I am worried about is that they might do this. The Mexican-US border is an issue. Bush has done nothing to secure the border for years, enough time for the thousands of agents to pass through illegally. At least two nukes are believed to be in the US already, fully assembled and operational.

The captured terrorists and documents also suggest smaller attacks may take place on American soil before the nuclear incidents. They may include some involving automatic weapons at schools and shopping malls, but will not include any airplane hijackings. Why? Because bin Laden does not want any failed efforts to overshadow "the success of Sept. 11." There will also not be any attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants. The rationale? The nuclear power plants can act as force multipliers when the weapons of mass destruction are detonated.

Not even fifty simultaneous nuclear detonations on American soil could destroy the country, but they aren't going for complete destructin, a task they could never achieve. To kill an enemy, you don't aim to destroy the entire body, you just go for a critical area with a gun or knife and they are brought down. Frankly, if America is attacked, the remaining 280 million Americans will have a loathing for Muslims in general. Many believe that Muslim concentration camps will be established, similar to the ones the Japanese were put into during WWII.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan." At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies. But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan.

America has long been hated by Al-Qaeda, particularily because we support and defend Israel, which it hates for no justifiable reason. They hate us because they believe we have committed atrocities against their people, ignoring the fact that they have slaughtered tens of thousands of their own people through bombings and attacks. This hatred against us is what spurs them onwards to try and carry out this attack against us. Osama bin Laden, the scumbag leader of Al-Qaeda, supports this operation whole-heartedly.

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

Well I can imagine Bush fuming over the threat of a nuclear attack. Who wouldn't be? If America is attacked again, it is hard to predict what Bush opponents will say. There are two possibilities that could result: 1) they will cry out that Bush misled us, failed to secure the borders, and provoked this attack through the war; or 2) they will claim that this would happen all along because Bush is a bad leader. But, the Syndicate believes that the majority of Americans will instead feel a hatred towards the Muslim population. While this would not be fully justifiable, it will be inevitable, regardless if they deserve it or not.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

The MS-13 gang needs to be utterly wiped out. This gang has presented so much trouble for American cities that they deserve nothing less than a bullet in the head; the fact that they are helping Al-Qaeda is justification for this; they are now American enemies.

America is running out of opportunities to repent and turn away from its sin. The senseless slaughter of 45 million babies, the pornography flooding American streets, the murders, the godlessness, the thievery; if America does not turn away from this completely, it may get what it wants: a society without God and His mercy.



Thus Saith The Feminist: We Demand Respect

(emphasis mine). The utopia is here? Could have fooled me. But what kills me about this paragraph is the statement that by dressing a certain way, young women are bringing danger on themselves. Where are the alarmist articles about the young men who are presumably the ones doing the damage to these girls? Where’s the cry to parents to teach their sons to respect women? Despite the fact that raising boys differently would probably eliminate most of the “dangers” this writer references, the burden is still put on young women — and the implication is, “if something bad happens to you, you brought it on yourself.”
Jill was commenting on something somebody said pertaining to the birth control pill and the danger young girls are bringing on themselves. He (the writer) says that the utopia of women controlling their own bodies is here. Jill thinks otherwise.

The thing is this: young girls who dress like prostitutes, wear extremely short skirts, and other suggestive clothes are to be taken as what? Business people? Respectable mothers? Hardly. When one dresses like a prostitute, walks down a dark alley in the middle of the night to get a drink in a notoriously dangerous neighborhood, what do you think is going to happen? Would you send your daughter into a situation like that? Women and young girls have to understand that the way they dress affects the way people view them. If you dress like a stripper, people have a tendency to treat you as such. If you dress properly (and I don't mean like wearing a suit all the time or an elaborate dress), people will treat you with greater respect.

And about the men who do this damage, I'm not excusing them for raping them or harming them. They should be thrown in jail for that. But don't think that all men will see your "lack of clothing" as a political statement, or a show of your rebellion towards the patriarchial society. If you want to be safe, avoid the suspicious areas. If you want to think that you're being restricted, then go on and think that. Some women have to take responsibility for the situation in which they put themselves in. A young girl (no matter what she's wearing) walking down a dark alley with no protection (weapons) should not be blind to the dangers that follow. We're are not living in a society where people can do that any more. It's gone. Think the situation through, avoid dark and suspicious places. Don't place yourself in a situation that you could regret later.

About the respect issue: women expect to be respected without earning it. If equality is what you desire, then you will be treated like men would treat other men. We don't baby them, don't fight their battles for them, etc. You feel that you like equality so much, then that is what you will get. Vox Day puts it very eloquently:

One of the many ironies of feminism is how it has replaced the patriarchal male who believes that women deserve to be treated better because they are the weaker sex with the equalitarian male who believes that women deserve to be treated worse because they are weak individuals.

But of course, since women are now our equals, the better treatment issue has been rendered null and void, as to not be sexist and to treat them with the equality they so rabidly desire.

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7



Friday, December 23, 2005

War On Christmas

Perhaps its a natural tendency to hate all things Christian, but the liberals and the espeically the leftist atheists seem to be pulling out all of their tricks to try and eradicate Christmas from American culture. I understand that not all of America is Christian, much as they use the asine statistic that 86% of America is, but let's get real here. Over 96% of America celebrates the holiday. It has been celebrated here in America for over 300 years. People STILL celebrate. The remaining four percent is not only Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Pagans, etc. Virtually every group of people in America celebrate the holiday.

There have been many a protest against stores that are dropping the "Merry Christmas" phrase for the "neutral" "Happy Holidays" phrase. It was not until the Christians protested this, causing significant losses in profits that they started saying "Merry Christmas" again. Christmas is a holiday under attack. I don't expect everyone to say "Merry Christmas." It's called a "free-society." And while not everybody celebrates Christmas, to deny that the month of December is anything but the Christmas season is to be simply full of PC bullcrap. It's not a festival tree, its not a holiday tree, its a Christmas tree. We don't call the menorah a "festival candle" so why do we do it for Christmas trees?

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hannukah, or Kwanza, remember that December 25 is the day we celebrate Jesus' brithday (it's not the exact day of his birth). It's not a festival, its a celebration. Keep in mind that Jesus is the reason why we celebrate the holiday, not to receive gifts or to set-up decorations.

Merry CHRISTmas to everyone.



Thursday, December 22, 2005

You Might Be A Die-Hard Feminist If... think that the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion. think that, while you spout equality, you deserve to be treated like a superior, with no viable justification. pull the victim card whenever a man claims that women are not being suppressed anymore. believe that men are the source for all of your problems, failures, and misunderstandings. feel like you are "going to throw up", "sick", or "nauseous" whenever a "weaker man" says something you don't like. think that being strong means being tough, vicious, and hard-spoken, even though you are really none of the above.

...keeping Roe v. Wade legal is considered to be one of your heart's greatest desires. feel that your are being sexually harrassed if a man looks at you when you don't want him to, but if it's someone you like though don't know, it's alright.


Nathan wins again

Big Brother Knows Where You Drove Last Summer

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

How is it that tracking the movements of law-abiding citizens will decrease the crimes committed by those who commit crimes? People who want to commit crimes will find a way. Using the clever disguise of "for the sake of decreasing crime rates and stopping terrorism, we will monitor your car's every move and journey."

The fact that someone as corrupt as the government is monitoring millions of people "for the sake of safety" is more disturbing than I imagined. A desire for total control over people's lives began in communist Russia. When government acts like a parent over someones lives, people become unable to really live anymore. With Big Brother always looking over your shoulder the society becomes similar to the one described in George Orwell's 1984. The government patrolled everything, even one's thoughts.

The Syndicate agrees with Benjamin Franklin in saying that "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither." The framers never meant for government to be a parent, but a servant. There has to be a balance between liberty and security. One cannot sacrifice the right to privacy for the security of their communities. If you want to be safer, get a firearm. Stripping away people's firearms turns them into defenseless citizens, which is why the government wants to deny them to law-abiding citizens.

It's all a conspiracy. Crazy, right? People said that trying to land on the moon was crazy. Some still believe that it can't happen. Crazy, right?


Nathan, once more

Canada's Plummet Into A Pit of Moral Depravity

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.

What's the kicker about this scenario is that the legal age for sexual consent in Canada is 14, which means that naturally some grimy-little 14 year old can go messing around with however he/she wants to. Of course, why not? It's not like Canada is actually offended by this. And an indecent act, as described by Canada, is one that offends the community.

According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, group sex neither offends nor harms the Canadian public.

Well, there you have it. I have heard of ew outcries directed at this. Could it be that nobody really cares about this? If any country is to be "boycotted" it should be Canada. With talks of group sex and gun bans, Canada should be the boycotted country of the season.



Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Mexico Protests US-Border Wall

The Mexican government, angered by a U.S. proposal to extend a wall along the border to keep out migrants, pledged Tuesday to block the plan and organize an international campaign against it.

The Mexican government is angered by what the U.S. is doing? Is that because their main economy is receiving money from the U.S. after we deport their citizens back into the country? Only the Mexican government has anything to lose by this so one could see why they are angry. I, however, don't really care.

“Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall,'’ Derbez said.“What has to be done is to raise a storm of criticism, as is already happening, against this,'’ he said, promising to turn other countries against the plan.

That "stupid thing" not only will help to keep out your own citizens who want jobs here, but also to slow down the drug smuggling and human trafficking which remains a constant problem down there. It's not America's fault if your own country is suffering economy problems (47% of Mexicans live in poverty). Instead of hoisting them on us, perhaps you should work on spending your money on improving the lives of your citizens. Maybe that would be beneficial to you in the long run.

I'm sorry, but I found that both funny and sad at the same time. Mexico is angry at us? Of all the countries in the world to be angry, they should have known better.


Garrick again

Canadians Threaten Gun Ban, Sales Shoot Up

Gun shop owners say handgun sales in Edmonton are skyrocketing since Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to ban them. The Liberal Leader made the promise a few weeks ago during a campaign stop in Toronto.
Gun bans have since come under fire after the liberal elitists issue false promises of security and safety. You would think that the Second Ammendment "the right to bear arms" would at least come to their minds as to whether or not people should own and carry weapons. There's a reason the founding fathers wanted people to carry their own guns, I believe the need for it was demonstrated during the Revolutionary war when tens of thousands of citizens used their OWN weapons against the enemy. But of course, that means nothing to them now because ordinary citizens are more dangerous than criminals.

I have a proposition, one that should interest them: How about you take away the weapons from the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens? Did it ever occur to you that quite possibly, ordinary citizens are not going to go murder their friends, shoot-up 7-11's or terrorize communites? That reminds me of something a criminal would do, someone who doesn't abide by the law and will still carry weapons even with a ban.

What irritates me most of all is that history has proven time and time again that gun bans actually result in more deaths and more violence, yet politicians are baffled by these results. Consider this, this is the result of firearm bans in Australia:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

I am particularily interested in finding out how the liberals counteract these statistics. So let me get this straight: we are safer without any form of protection, the criminals will turn in their firearms because they will moved by our desire for a peaceful society? That makes absolutely no sense, logically and intellectually. Knowing criminals, the fact that their victims are now unarmed only stirs them forward to attack them, not leave them alone. Criminals operate outside the law. The more guns are taking away, the more criminals with guns will take their place. Either the politicians are really trying to create a society totally dependent on the useless government for help, or they are really as dumb as I believe. Either way, they should be impeached. A totalitarian politician is just as dangerous as one who is both ignorant and gullible.

Gun control kills. Citizens with guns are far less likely to be attacked by criminals since there is no way to tell who has a gun on them. Knowing liberals, they don't believe their own mantra on how it protects, they simply want a totally dependent society, as is usually the desire of government.



ACLU vs. the First Ammendment

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose
mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

Surheinrich, good man. It never fails to amaze me how many ignorant people out there constantly blather on about the myth of "Separation of Church and State." Apparently, the words "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion" have been translated into "Congress shall make any law restricting the establishment of Christianity, anywhere, anytime, by anyone." Thank God we have the ACLU, fighting for "the little guy and basic liberties that we hold dear." By liberties held dear, they mean liberties minus Christianity.

The ACLU needs to wise up. For years now they have been mindlessly howling at those who actually want Christianity in the government, in public places. Most of the people that they "claim" to represent, the ones you hear NOTHING from don't care if there's a cross on a city seal or that the Ten Commandments are in a courthouse. The overwhelming majority does in fact want those things to remain where they are/were. But because of the silent majority bowing down before the self-righteous, long-suffering minority, those things are now considered "heinous" and violations of "separation of church and state."

There's a quote that the Syndicate particularily favors when reviewing articles about the ACLU. I believe it goes, "Evil can only triumph when good men do nothing." Frankly, the good men have had enough.



Sunday, December 18, 2005

Killing People For Oil We're Not Receiving

Recognize this symbol? It used to be a fish with a cross in it before the self-righteous Democrats embraced an activists new idea for a Christian symbol.

The symbol, which caused trouble for democrats after a webblog wrote an article on "Democratic hostility towards Christians." And while the Syndicate agrees that such an image is true of a majority of Christians, it is interesting to note that, of all people, the Democrats are the ones to embrace something calling another group of people "hypocrites." Ironic, isn't it?

The magnet is meant to illustrate the disparity between Christian values and the practices of some Christian leaders, especially those involved in politics. Bigelow said the real aim of Reefer Magnets is to educate and advocate for decriminalizing marijuana. "In my opinion, we wouldn't be such a warring people if we used more cannabis and used less alcohol," she said.

Such a warring people? Have you ever looked into history, lady? Let us recap for a moment on the major wars America has been in.

Revolutionary War: Meant to break free from Britain because of tyranny and flagrant violation of American liberties and rights.
Civil War: Meant to reunite the North with the South; as a by-product, slaves were set-free and earned the right to vote.
World War I: We rushed to the defense of France after Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) promised not to get us involved in a war.
World War II: After Pearl Harbor was attacked, we went to war with both Nazi Germany and the Japanese.
Vietname War: Meant to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam.
War on Terror: Objective unknown; not meant to receive foreign oil; total intake beyond normal: none.

Warring people, eh? The last time I checked, most of the wars we were involved in were not started by us, meant to result in something positive, or to defend our allies. Does that classify us as "warring?" By her definition it does.

"We don't need to be in a war for oil because we have industrial hemp," she said. "If you look into all the little things that hemp can do, you'll understand. We wouldn't be killing people for oil."

Again, we were attacked on Sept. 11 that brought us into this war. While I don't think the proper country to go to was Iraq, we certainly didn't go there for oil. I have yet to see any more unusual supplies of oil coming in. In case you haven't noticed, gas prices are still $2 to $3. If we really went there for oil, how come gas prices haven't dropped dramatically? We could take the oil fields if we wanted to, but we haven't.

By the way, the Demo-magnet is no longer for sale. Within 48 hours it was removed with no purchases made. Again, if any party thinks they are self-righteous enough to declare another group of people "hypocritical" they should try walking into a bathroom, looking into a mirror and repeating the phrase "I am a hypocrite." The Republicans and Democrats are all too often accusing the other of being hypocritical. If the Democrats feel they needed to embrace such a thing to make themselves bigger, they diminished themselves further in my eyes.

State Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt told the Seattle Times he first found out about the fish posting when a local radio station called to ask him to go on the air to give an explanation.

"The moment I became aware of it, I insisted it be taken down," Berendt said Tuesday. "I'm sorry if anyone was offended. It's embarrassing."

While his apology generally ended the controversy, one should consider that the term Christian today has been reduced to meaning "hypocrite" and while the sticker was intentionally started to be speaking of the Christian Republicans, it is not without some truth.



Sodom and Hollywood: They Never Understood

In one of the most deadly phenomena of our time – or any time – Hollywood has produced a film called "Brokeback Mountain," which glorifies and glamorizes that male sodomy which remains the cause of so many thousands of deaths by AIDS – and now by syphilis.

Thank God we have the sodomy-infatuated Hollywood to bring us our daily supply of moral depravity and decadence.

In a supreme lack of comprehension and good judgement, Hollywood produced a film named "Brokeback Mountain." The film stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, two homosexual cowboys in the Western United States during the 1960s. The two lovers eventually marry, have kids, then meet-up four years later only to share what was quite possibly the most fiery gay kiss ever put-forth on the big screen.

Ever heard of the term "bareback"? Neither have I. Your straight if that is the case, because "bareback" is gayspeak for "unsafe sex." Some have renamed the movie "Bareback Mountain." Now, the very fact that they have coined a new term for the way gay's speak is simply absurd and frankly ridiculous, but I respect their right to do so.

If you feel the overwhelming urge to see such a moral holocaust, don't. The days where Hollywood produced films worth seeing are long dead (there are exceptions to this). But, in the words of Les Kinsolving, "How much longer until Hollywood produces a beastiality movie?" Because beastiality is the one thing they have left to embrace.



Saturday, December 17, 2005

Quake of the Week: Japan

QotW: Saturday, December 17, 2005; Japan; 6.2

A 6.2 undersea earthquake struck Japan today. There is no danger of a tsunami and there were no immediate reports of damages or injuries.

The quake struck about 30 miles off the Miyagi coast, about 180 miles northeast of Tokyo. Japan is one of the most earthquake prone areas earth, due to its position near the tectonic plates.

"...And there will be earthquakes in diverse places."



The Puzzle of Women's Rights

Why is it that when feminists hear the words "womens rights", "abortion", and "feminism" they suddenly become stone-faced and defensive.

Womens rights: the ability to vote was given in the early 20th century to women who had long since hoped to get this right, even before the Civil War.

Women in the work place: now, more than ever before, more women are working in the work place. This was demanded during the glorious 60s and 70s when civil rights was such a big thing and people actually wanted the fabeled equality. Then again, what is true equality?

Women and abortions: since Roe v. Wade, nearly 45 million abortions performed in the United States. Feminists label this as the "right to choose." Add on these three words: "murder over life" and you'll see things differently.

There is no doubt that abortion is murder. Abortion is the willful murder of an unborn baby despite the fact that it has its own DNA, heartbeat, and body. Life, feminists proclaim, is started at birth, but some, like the decadent buffoon Peter Singer, believe that abortion should be allowed even a month after birth. Life just keeps on becoming more expendable, doesn't it? But this is not what this article is about, entirely.

Have you ever considered that women's rights may have done more harm than good? Don't get us wrong, we are glad that women can work, vote (a mixed blessing that is), and do all the wonderful things that women can now do, but what about the otherside of the coin?

"And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed." (VoxDay)

As Vox Day so eloquently put it, more women working equals less time for things that matter like marriage, children, and raising a family. Or do you consider being a paper-pusher behind the mask of some great firm that could replace you in a heartbeat to be of greater significance?

"a) American childbirths have dropped from 18.4 to 13.9 per thousand, b) 34 million women entered the labor force between 1970 and 2000, 2 million more than all legal and illegal immigration into the U.S.A. during the same period, c) fewer people are working past the age of 55 than ever before, d) more corporations would increase the demand for labor, not reduce it, e) The economy has not dropped but grown from 5.03 trillion in 1970 to 11.75 trillion in 2004 as measured in 2005 dollars." (VoxDay)

Logic: less women having children; more women entering the work force; less women believing in the traditional marriage; more women becoming rabid over any hint of material suggesting that womens rights have been bad = a society slowly destroying itself.

Fewer and fewer men are getting married because of arrogant, windbags that spout feminist propoganda preaching that women have the inherent right to be in the work force, that women, not men, are the dominant factors in the marriages. Thanks to feminism, population has dropped, abortions have skyrocketed, and divorce has exploded exponentially all for the beloved desire to be a corporations employee behind a wooden desk. Those rights that they held so dear have ultimately shown that not only feministic women cannot control themselves when the idea of working and domineering somebody presents itself, but that they do not care for such things as love and submission. They preach hate against men because they feel we are a hindrance to their aspirations, that men are too violent, too domineering to their liking.

It is not a surprise that men are not putting up with this and are managing to stay away from arrogance such as them. Most men are not going to be brutal to their wives, nor supress them. There is such a thing as love, feminists. Something like that is key to a relationship. Domineering, as they see it, is saying "We need to think of the kids." Equality, as they see it, is saying "Yes dear (to the wife), I will do what you ask."

Don't get me wrong, I fully support women who have jobs and who work, but when your job comes before your spouse, children and family, its when those beloved rights begin to replace your beloved children.

"American society does not need even one more woman lawyer, professor or junior executive. Frivolous lawsuits will be filed, students will be brainwashed with leftist propaganda, and tedious Powerpoint demonstrations will be assembled with or without female assistance. Instead, what American society needs is women strong enough to be the anchors of their marriages, the foundation of their children's lives and the bedrock of our civilization." (VoxDay)

You know, theirs a qualitative difference between traditional marriage roles and feministic marriage roles: one preaches love and submission, the other preaches female power and dominance.

"The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing." (Ephesians 5:23)



Thursday, December 15, 2005

The Sticker, the Evolutionist and the Controvery

"The anti-evolution forces have been searching for a new strategy that would accomplish the same end," said Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and co-author of the science book that was stickered. "That purpose is, if not to get evolution out of the schools altogether, then at least undermine it as much as possible in the minds of students."

This person fails to understand that evolution has been, and still is, a theory. Compromise has never been an elitist's strong points, so one should expect as much rhetoric as possible from that side of the spectrum. Have they ever considered that maybe a compromise would be in order? Perhaps, oh I don't know, teaching them both together? A class on intelligent design and one on evolution?

The sticker-in-the-front-of-the-book idea was good until it was deemed unconstitutional. How is it unconstitutional, you may ask? By saying that evolution is only a theory, they have unconsciously endorsed religion. If this is so, then what, I might ask, is constitutional? If merely saying that the THEORY of evolution is still just a theory, then is freedom of thought acceptable? Or is the fact that someone disagrees with you now a crime.

I'm glad we have the Speech Police Elites on the loose, decreeing what is acceptable to be called something and what is blasphemy against their way-of-thinking.


still Christopher

Five Ways To Argue Like An Idiot

1. Use various and insulting tactics such as questioning the person's identity. You can't prove that a person you are debating with online is not who they say they are, you can, however, add seeds of doubt. Make them question who they are and why they are arguing with you.

2. Draw the racism/sexism/religionism card. All to many times people fail to bring in these valuable items into the playing fields. Go on, feel sorry for yourself if you're of a different race, or gender because you feel that what this person is saying is things about you. They will back down as soon as they see you are not to be trifled with.

3. Use false data. No one can doubt your false data, especially if it has an anonymous source in an unknown location. All you can do is continue attacking their position with your non-existent information. Don't worry, if they try and discredit your information, just call them a liar and acuse them of falisfying information. You're not a hypocrite, its called self-defense.

4. Add the "I'm a jerk playing Sarcasm" routine to your arguments. Don't worry about what the attacker will say. His arguments are of no use now that you've proven that you know nothing about what you're talking about, nor what he is talking about. But at least you'll get a laugh out of it.

5. Claim that your political affiliation is of great meaning. All to many times I see poor fools using the "I'm not in a party" card and I can't help but pity them. Republican, Democrat, Green or Independent, it doesn't matter. All of them hold a high level of morality and intelligence. Holding fast to your political affliation as if it were something to treasure shows something about you: you're gullible and easily manipulated by what the Party says.

Yes, if you've ever found yourself using any of these tactics, congratulations, you're an idiot.

"But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels." 2 Timothy 2:23



Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Differences of X and Y

"From the beginning he told me and my children he was 17 and I didn't want to date him then and I told him 'no' repeatedly," Clark said. "I finally agreed. … I wasn't even comfortable in public with him at first because of his age, and, but, you know we got along so well. Everything. He was just so nice."

About two hundred years ago, this would not have been viewed as something strange. Even at the beginning of the last century (1900), this would not have been viewed as something worhty of recognition. But when a pregnant, 37 year old teacher has married a 15 year old boy because of a misconception (as well as an internal conception) something has gone drastically wrong.

Either America has become a nation of decadence or we have just started a new wave of "sexual realization and acceptance." I wonder, how would you feel if the roles were reversed? What if it was a 37 year old man and 15 year old girl, and she was pregnant and married to him? The guy would have been jailed within minutes. But since the roles are different, it has somehow become acceptable? Why? Because he's young and not as threatening as a man is to a girl? Hardly.

The reason she's not in jail is because of a Georgia loophole that allows a couple to get married without parental consent if the bride is pregnant.

In 1900, this wouldn't have been a moral issue...had they been married and not been messing around before that time. Now, it's alright for people to have sex before their married, even if they are as young as 12. Marriage is condoned if the girl is pregnant, and the couple are left to their fashions.

Loopholes to do not equal justification, especially if something is morally incorrect. A 15 year old marrying a pregnant 37 year is old is still wrong, even if the government fails to legally recognize it. True, in the Bible, people got married young, but they didn't have sex before that. In fact, it was not until a year later that they did, just to prove that the bride had not engaged in any amoral activities.

Times may change, but morality does not. Either get with the program, or stay in the dark.



You're stupid if.... believe that any and all issues in the U.S. come down to choosing either of the positions offered by the two dominant parties that control the country. think that your party (it doesn't matter which) and its followers are better, are always right, and are way smarter than the other party and their followers. think that your favorite president was actually any good (Washington excepted). believe that there is anyone in this world who is smart and/or moral enough to order the launch of nuclear weapons (test of this premise: do you personally know or is there anyone in your family that you would give this power to?). think that you have "rights". don't realize that force or threat of force is how all governments operate. believe anything that comes out of the mouth of any politician (Ron Paul excepted). think our government has sufficient integrity and moral discernment to administer capital punishment.

More ways to discover if you're stupid to come.


The Mind Drive

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Quake of the Day: Fiji

QotW: Tuesday, December 13; Fiji; 6.3

SUVA, Fiji — A powerful undersea earthquake struck near Fiji on Tuesday, and officials issued a tsunami alert for the local area. The 6.3 magnitude quake occurred at 3:16 p.m. local time about 150 miles northeast of Vanua Levu, the main tourist spot in Fiji's chain of islands. The U.S. Geological Survey said it was 18 miles deep.
No damage or injuries were immediately reported.


That's two in one week, this is getting interesting.

"...earthquakes in diverse places..."


The Mind Drive

Monday, December 12, 2005

Narnia and the Christ Within

Almost 100 million people have read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" which is part 2 of Christian-based book series entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia." The books were written by C.S. Lewis during the mid-50's. Lewis has 7 books in the series, all of which continue Biblical-allegories. Book 2 is probably one of the most-renowned books in his series.

Now, the book has been made into a movie. It is a rarity when books made into movies are successful. Lord of the Rings was a dynamic success, as are the Harry Potter books, now we have Narnia.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe grossed over 67.1 million dollars the first day, topping all of the other movies out there by over 55 million. Critics call it "Extravagant", "Amazing." But there are some who do not like it. Oh yes, they like the movie, just not that Christians claim it as a Christian movie.

This year, Hollywood has been struggling in monetary terms. Movies such as HP 4 and Narnia have really helped them out. But this is only so because huge numbers of Christians went to see Narnia, and many more are on their way. The anti-Christian crowds claim that no spiritual theme exists in Narnia, but C.S. Lewis said otherwise, laying out the themes of each of the books.

"The Magician's Nephew" tells the Creation and how evil entered Narnia.

"The Lion" etc. the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

"Prince Caspian" restoration of the true religion after corruption.

"The Horse and His Boy" the calling and conversion of a heathen.

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep).

"The Silver Chair" the continuing war with the powers of darkness.

"The Last Battle" the coming of the antichrist (the ape) the end of the world and the Last Judgement.

It would seem that Lewis planned each book to have a spiritual theme, wouldn't you agree?

Oddly enough, Lewis never wanted a movie made from the series, but one has to imagine that he would he proud of this movie if he saw it. The movie remains true to the book and has great visual effects. Aslan, the lion, is an actual lion in the movie. By the way, Aslan represents Christ.

So if you are a theologian, a Christian, an average guy, or none of the above, then you will still enjoy the movie that runs thick with a Christian theme and has proven to be a powerful tool for spreading the Gospel.



Sunday, December 11, 2005

Quake of the Week: Papua New Guinea

QotW: Sunday, December 11, 2005; Papua New Guinea; 6.8

An underwater earthquake struck Papua New Guinea today. A magnitude 6.8 quake rattled homes and buildings. This is the fourth quake to strike Papua New Guinea in the last seven years. A quake struck it Thursday (magnitude 6.1). In September, a 7.0 quake struck the country, and one in 1998, which killed 2,000 people (this one was a tsunami).

"James Luga, a police officer in Kimbe, a town of 10,000 people about 155 miles (250 kilometers) east-southeast of the epicenter, said the quake had caused no damage in the town."

Four quakes in seven years. Earthquakes in diverse places. The world perplexed at the roaring of the sea. This is getting ridiculous. Not long ago, I reported an earthquake in East Africa. I have no doubt there will be another earthquake soon, but this is getting interesting (in a bad way).



Israel Plans to Strike Iran in March

Iran, as you well know, is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Naturally they deny such an accusation, but looking at what they are building, its hard to deny it. Iran, people believe, is only months from having nuclear weapons. This is also the same country that said that "Israel needs to be wiped off the map."

So, Iran wants nuclear weapons, believes Israel needs to be wiped off of the map, and has China and Russia behind it. Israel is God's Chosen people and has been known for being successful during military campaigns. The question is: What will happen if Israel strikes Iran?

"The world is losing patience with Iran" is what Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, said. And he's correct. Iran is pushing this to see how far they can go without anybody doing anything, but they know that because of their allies, no one but the US, its allies, and Israel would strike it if one of it's facilities were attacked. This would truly be a global war with Russia, Iran, China, and the US involved.
"Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

The situation with Iran and Israel is like a powerkeg just waiting for the match to be struck. If that happens, all hell will break lose, literally. This is a dangerous situation. But Israel is not unprepared to deal with this situation.

"The Times reports Israel would likely call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refueling."

Israel really has no other choice in this situation. This is what could be called a "preemptive strike." In todays world, attacking an enemy before they attack you, is discouraged. I fear now that it's only a matter of time before WWIII is ignited, like a box of dynamite with a flaming wire. It's only a matter of time....

"When my people Israel are established securely, will you make your move? 15Will you come down out of the far north, you and that mob of armies, charging out on your horses like a tidal wave across the land, 16and invade my people Israel, covering the country like a cloud? When the time's ripe, I'll unleash you against my land in such a way that the nations will recognize me, realize that through you, Gog, in full view of the nations, I am putting my holiness on display." Ezekiel 38: 14-16 (MSG)

The northern nations listed in Ezekiel represent Russia, Kazakhstan, Libya, Iran, Georgia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Ukraine, and Sudan. All these nations will attack Israel, but God will declare all out war against them and they will be utterly destroyed. Read the rest of Ezekiel 38 here.

"I'll show you how great I am, how holy I am. I'll make myself known all over the world. Then you'll realize that I am GOD.' Ezkiel 38:23 (MSG)



Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Quake of the Week: East Africa

QotW: Monday, December 5, 2005; East Africa; 6.8

The first Quake of the Week took place in East Africa near Lake Tanganyika on the Congo-Tanzanian border. There were scattered reports of at least one death, with collateral damage to many buildings. The towns of Rumandi and Kalemie also saw damage with claims of children buried under the rubble.

The quake registered in at a 6.8 magnitude on the Richter scale. Tremors ensued in various places.

The East African zone is known for its quake-filled area. It is located along of rim of volcanoes and earthquake-prone landscapes. East Africa was also the site of a volcanic eruption in Jan. 2002 where over 100 people were killed.

". . . And there will be 'earthquakes in diverse places" (Matt. 24: 8)



Saturday, December 03, 2005

Sanctity of Life Under Fire

There's a line to moral failure that some people manage to live by. One of those people is Peter Singer, a Princeton proffessor who advocates infanticide, the killing of children already born. For that, he believes that children should be killed up to 28 days after their birth. Naturally, he is in support of abortion as well. But something else is different.

For people like Peter Singer, the sanctity of life is null and void. They find no valid reason to believe that humans have any intrinsic worth or value. We are on the same level as animals.

"This experience (with euthanasia and assisted suicide) will puncture exaggerated fears that the legalization of these practices would be a first step toward a new holocaust," he explains.

The Holocaust of WWII (namely the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and the Third Reich) has long paled in comparison to the deaths of the unborn babies over the past 30 years. Since Roe v. Wade, over 45 million babies have been killed. Now, we have some guy who proposes extending the right to abortion to 28 days after birth.

Okay, am I missing something or has society taken a nosedive over the past 35 years? This "man" is advocating the death of an entire class of people, along with those who also can not choose: the ones in comas. I'm not saying that I would want to be hooked up to a machine for years at a time, but this guy is implying that those in comas for periods of time should be killed without consent.

Someone who advocates such things, whether free speech or not, is a moral failure. While he says that Bush should have "turned the other cheek" when we were attacked on 9/11 because that's what a "true Christian" would have done, he talks about infanticide. Mr., where do you get off telling us what a true Christian would do? He talks about the thousands of lives killed, yet agrees with assisted-suicide. Hypocritical? I'm not denying that.

Oh and one more thing: He won the bioethics award in 2003. Ironic, huh?



Friday, December 02, 2005

We Are The Syndicate

The domain of the shadowmind has been revealed. From this point on, everything you've heard or thought you've heard will change. Nothing will be as it seems until you see for yourself what happens when reality and the dream world collide. Your sacred cows are about to be slaughtered. You have been warned....

The Enigma Syndicate