Slappy Holiday - repost

Here is a GREAT article from World Magazine in 2006
Enjoy….

Why not take the Santa Claus tradition a little further? | by Gene Edward Veith

Santa Claus had his origins in St. Nicholas, the fourth-century bishop of Myra in present-day Turkey. Known for his generosity and his love of children, Nicholas is said to have saved a poor family's daughters from slavery by tossing into their window enough gold for a rich dowry, a present that landed in some shoes or, in some accounts, stockings that were hung up to dry. Thus arose the custom of hanging up stockings for St. Nicholas to fill. And somehow he transmogrified into Santa Claus, who has become for many people the secular Christmas alternative to Jesus Christ.

But there is more to the story of Nicholas of Myra. He was also a delegate to the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325, which battled the heretics who denied the deity of Christ. He was thus one of the authors of the Nicene Creed, which affirms that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. And unlike his later manifestation, Nicholas was particularly zealous in standing up for Christ.

During the Council of Nicea, jolly old St. Nicholas got so fed up with Arius, who taught that Jesus was just a man, that he walked up and slapped him! That unbishoplike behavior got him in trouble. The council almost stripped him of his office, but Nicholas said he was sorry, so he was forgiven.

The point is, the original Santa Claus was someone who flew off the handle when he heard someone minimizing Christ. Perhaps we can battle our culture's increasingly Christ-less Christmas by enlisting Santa in his original cause. The poor girls' stockings have become part of our Christmas imagery. So should the St. Nicholas slap.

Not a violent hit of the kind that got the good bishop in trouble, just a gentle, admonitory tap on the cheek. This should be reserved not for out-and-out nonbelievers, but for heretics (that is, people in the church who deny its teachings), Christians who forget about Jesus, and people who try to take Christ out of Christmas.

This will take a little tweaking of the mythology. Santa and his elves live at the North Pole where they compile a list of who is naughty, who is nice, and who is Nicean. On Christmas Eve, flying reindeer pull his sleigh full of gifts. And after he comes down the chimney, he will steal into the rooms of people dreaming of sugarplums who think they can do without Christ and slap them awake.

And we'll need new songs and TV specials ("Santa Claus Is Coming to Slap," "Deck the Apollinarian with Bats of Holly," "Frosty the Gnostic," "How the Arian Stole Christmas," "Rudolph the Red Knows Jesus").

Department store Santas should ask the children on their laps if they have been good, what they want for Christmas, and whether they understand the Two Natures of Christ. The Santas should also roam the shopping aisles, and if they hear any clerks wish their customers a mere "Happy Holiday," give them a slap.

This addition to his job description will keep Santa busy. Teachers who forbid the singing of religious Christmas carols—SLAP! Office managers who erect Holiday Trees—SLAP! Judges who outlaw manger displays—SLAP! People who give The Da Vinci Code as a Christmas present—SLAP! Ministers who cancel Sunday church services that fall on Christmas day—SLAP! SLAP!

Perhaps Santa Claus in his original role as a theological enforcer may not go over very well in our contemporary culture. People may then try to take both Christ and Santa Claus out of Christmas. And with that economic heresy, the retailers would start to do the slapping.

Guitar Frets:

Guitar Frets: Environmental Enforcement Leaves Musicians in Fear 

By ERIC FELTEN

 

 Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pore through the workshop at the Gibson Guitar factory on Wednesday morning.

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson's chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company's manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. "The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier," he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.

It isn't the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian's ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms."

The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn't be a negligible offense. Peter Lowry, ebony and rosewood expert at the Missouri Botanical Garden, calls the Madagascar wood trade the "equivalent of Africa's blood diamonds." But with the new raid, the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.

It isn't just Gibson that is sweating. Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.

If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution.

John Thomas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University and a blues and ragtime guitarist, says "there's a lot of anxiety, and it's well justified." Once upon a time, he would have taken one of his vintage guitars on his travels. Now, "I don't go out of the country with a wooden guitar."

The tangled intersection of international laws is enforced through a thicket of paperwork. Recent revisions to 1900's Lacey Act require that anyone crossing the U.S. border declare every bit of flora or fauna being brought into the country. One is under "strict liability" to fill out the paperwork—and without any mistakes.

It's not enough to know that the body of your old guitar is made of spruce and maple: What's the bridge made of? If it's ebony, do you have the paperwork to show when and where that wood was harvested and when and where it was made into a bridge? Is the nut holding the strings at the guitar's headstock bone, or could it be ivory? "Even if you have no knowledge—despite Herculean efforts to obtain it—that some piece of your guitar, no matter how small, was obtained illegally, you lose your guitar forever," Prof. Thomas has written. "Oh, and you'll be fined $250 for that false (or missing) information in your Lacey Act Import Declaration."
Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr. Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years, Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation.
Given the risks, why don't musicians just settle for the safety of carbon fiber? Some do—when concert pianist Jeffrey Sharkey moved to England two decades ago, he had Steinway replace the ivories on his piano with plastic.

Still, musicians cling to the old materials. Last year, Dick Boak, director of artist relations for C.F. Martin & Co., complained to Mother Nature News about the difficulty of getting elite guitarists to switch to instruments made from sustainable materials. "Surprisingly, musicians, who represent some of the most savvy, ecologically minded people around, are resistant to anything about changing the tone of their guitars," he said.

You could mark that up to hypocrisy—artsy do-gooders only too eager to tell others what kind of light bulbs they have to buy won't make sacrifices when it comes to their own passions. Then again, maybe it isn't hypocrisy to recognize that art makes claims significant enough to compete with environmentalists' agendas.

Sharia Compliance in Dearborn, Mich

Sharia Compliance in Dearborn, Mich.

By Cal Thomas

The RINO (reverend in name only) Terry Jones is like his fellow RINO, Fred Phelps, but in political drag.

Jones, the “pastor” (PINO?) of the tiny and inconsequential Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., was jailed last week in Dearborn, Mich., “following a jury trial that found he was likely to create a ‘breach of the peace’ for plans to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn,” according to the Detroit News. Jones and his associate Wayne Sapp were taken into custody after they refused to post a $1 “peace bond.” A judge then barred Jones and Sapp from entering the property of the Islamic Center — the largest mosque in the U.S. — for three years. The two posted bond and were released, but they promised to return on Friday.

Last month, Jones burned a Koran, which led to demonstrations and deaths in the Middle East.

Let’s get the obligatory and obvious out of the way before moving to the central issue in this case. Jones is a publicity hound and an offense to the One he claims to follow.

Having said that, what about Jones’ First Amendment rights? In 1977, the Illinois Supreme Court, after instruction from the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march through Skokie, Ill., home of many Holocaust survivors. The Illinois Supreme Court even ruled that the hated swastika was a form of free speech and thus entitled to First Amendment protection. So, though neo-Nazi’s marching through a predominantly Jewish town wearing swastikas might be considered offensive, the court ruled, it was not illegal.

In the case of Fred Phelps and his family, all members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., who carry outrageous “Thank God for dead soldiers” signs and claim America is being punished because of its growing tolerance for homosexuals, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Speech with which one agrees is easy to defend. Most would defend political speech with which they disagree, although a minority would censor it. The strength and uniqueness of the First Amendment is that it defends even hate speech. The response to speech we don’t like is not less speech, but more. In Skokie, some Holocaust survivors created a museum to commemorate those who were murdered by the Nazis. That’s the correct reaction. Overcome darkness with light. Overcome speech you don’t like with speech you do like.

In the Jones case, what are the Dearborn authorities thinking? Isn’t Islam a “religion of peace”? President Obama — and George W. Bush before him — has said it is. If lawful speech and assembly brings an unlawful act of violence, shouldn’t the lawbreakers be the ones punished?

This is America and public sidewalks should be for the use of the public to practice even offensive speech and peaceful assembly. That some “fear” violence is no excuse for prior restraint of speech and assembly. From whom is the violence feared?

What the Muslims in Dearborn and elsewhere in the country should be told is that in America, we do things differently than in countries where Muslims have political control. If you want to be tolerated, you have to tolerate others, including those whose beliefs you don’t like. We don’t conform to your religious laws; you conform to our secular laws. We are about freedom.

If you have an agenda, don’t bring it here. In fact, if our ways are so offensive to you, why are you here? Why come to a land regarded by some Islamic leaders, and many followers, as “the Great Satan”? Why not stay in your home country, or, if you were born in America and embrace Islam, why not live in countries where Islam is the dominant religion? Or do you wish to dominate and subjugate the rest of us to your Sharia law?

If that is your goal, we will oppose you and even demonstrate against it. Except, apparently, in Dearborn, Mich.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3239

satire is a form of communication....

....using irony and sarcasm in which folly and vice are exposed and ridiculed.

Every Life Has a Story ...

 ..  If we take time to read it.

Protestants, not Protesters

Fred Sanders
On This Day, Theology
04.19.2011

Today (April 19) is the anniversary of the 1529 Protestation of Speyer, which is generally regarded as the first time that the word “Protestant” was used to refer to a religious position distinct from Roman Catholicism. A coalition of German princes and leaders refused to abide by the imperial ban on Luther’s teachings, and called instead for the free spread of gospel teaching in their territories.

These days, in English at least, we sometimes hear that “Protestants” are by definition people who “protest,” that is, people defined by their disagreement with something, their dissent, their rejection of something. It is, in other words, considered a term that stands for nothing positive, but draws its meaning only by negation.

Now, I don’t make much of this, but it seems to me like a bit of bogus etymology. “Protest” might be the nearest cognate of “Protestant” in modern English, but it’s silly to take that as a clue to the word’s origin –sort of like finding “dance” in the word “concordance” and deciding they’re related; or “sacrilege” means putting religion in a sac; or that “validate” is from valid + date = “at the right time;” or “excruciate” means to take off of a cross, etc. But I digress.

The word seems to come from pro + testari, to testify forth, or to hold forth a position on something. Its primary historical meaning has been to assert, to maintain, to proclaim solemnly or state formally.
You can find the positive sense of Protestant all over early English literature. Perhaps the best example is from the poet Robert Herrick (1591-1674), whose poem “To Anthea, who may command him anything” begins:

BID me to live, and I will live
Thy Protestant to be;
Or bid me love, and I will give
A loving heart to thee.

and ends:

Thou art my life, my love my heart,
The very eyes of me:
And hast command of every part
To live and die for thee.

Herrick is not offering to protest (in our sense) or negate anything. Mr. “Gather Ye Rosebuds” has something positive in mind here. In another poem Herrick makes a “protestation” that he will return to Julia. I’m not sure why he’s pitching woo at Julia and Anthea both, but that’s another story anyway. Rumor is that Herrick taught his favorite pig to drink from a tankard, and once cussed out his congregation (yes, he was a preacher) for not paying attention to a sermon, which he proceeded to throw at them. But again, I digress.

So I protest against this bogus etymology, and I maintain that “Protestant” means something a lot closer to a word like “declare,” as in “having a message and sticking with it.” If you know Protestants who are mainly negative, blame them; not the word.

Super Weird, or Extra-Ordinarily Cool

I vote the latter....

Rob Bell Speaks....

Bill Gates Humor

Three Things About Islam

Difference Between Christianity and Other Religions in a Nutshell

from Parchment and Pen by C Michael Patton

God's Providence in Salvation

Tom Martin Testimony from Covenant Life Church on Vimeo.


Tom Martin is a member of Covenant Life. He recently shared the story of how Jesus saved him with the whole church. It's worth watching. What matters most in his story is the powerful example of God's providence in our salvation--he reaches out his mighty arms to save even those who are far from him.

Lt. Gen. Kelly On The Two That Stood Their Ground

On Nov 13, 2010 Lt General John Kelly, USMC, gave a speech to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis, MO. This was only 4 days after his son, Lt Robert Kelly, USMC was killed by an IED while on his 3rd Combat tour. During his speech, General Kelly spoke about the dedication and valor of the young men and women who step forward each and every day to protect us. During the speech, he never mentioned the loss of his own son. He closed the speech with the moving account of the last 6 seconds in the lives of 2 young Marines who died with rifles blazing to protect their brother Marines.  If you've been reading Blackfive long enough, you know exactly who we're talking about:

"I will leave you with a story about the kind of people they are about the quality of the steel in their backs, about the kind of dedication they bring to our country while they serve in uniform and forever after as veterans.

Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 "The Walking Dead," and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just starting its seven-month combat tour. Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines. The same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police, also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda.

Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle class white kid from Long Island. They were from two completely different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have met each other, or understood that multiple America's exist simultaneously depending on one's race, education level, economic status, and where you might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.

The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went something like: "Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass." "You clear?" I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like:

"Yes Sergeant," with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, "No kidding sweetheart, we know what we're doing." They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, Al Anbar, Iraq.

A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way-perhaps 60-70 yards in length-and sped its way through the serpentine f concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck's engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped. Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn't have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.

When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it happened I called the regimental commander for details as something about this struck me as different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is what the mission takes. But this just seemed different. The regimental commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that there were no American witnesses to the event-just Iraqi police. I figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I'd have to do it as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general officer.

I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the serpentine. They all said, "We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing." The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the explosion. All survived. Many were injured.some seriously. One of the Iraqis elaborated and with tears welling up said, "They'd run like any normal man would to save his life." "What he didn't know until then," he said, "and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal." Choking past the emotion he said, "Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did." "No sane man."

"They saved us all."

What we didn't know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: ".let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass." The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.

It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were-some running right past the Marines.

They had three seconds left to live.

For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines' weapons firing non-stop.the truck's windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the SOB who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers-American and Iraqi-bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe, because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God.

Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty, into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight-for you.

We Marines believe that God gave America the greatest gift he could bestow to man while he lived on this earth-freedom. We also believe he gave us another gift nearly as precious-our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines-to safeguard that gift and guarantee no force on this earth can ever steal it away. It has been my distinct honor to have been with you here today. Rest assured our America, this experiment in democracy started over two centuries ago, will forever remain the "land of the free and home of the brave" so long as we never run out of tough young Americans who are willing to look beyond their own self-interest and comfortable lives, and go into the darkest and most dangerous places on earth to hunt down, and kill, those who would do us harm.

God Bless America, and..

SEMPER FIDELIS!"

Two Marines saved at least 50 that day.  They gave their lives to defend their post stopping a truck with thousands of pounds of explosives from getting near the gate.
 

Marines render honors while the national anthem is played during a Navy Cross ceremony in honor of two fallen Camp Lejeune Marines, Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, from Sag Harbor, N.Y., and Cpl. Jonathan Yale, from Burkeville, Va. Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, presented the awards at a ceremony at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Haerter and Yale posthumously received the Navy Cross for actions in April 2008. They are credited with saving the lives of many Marines and Iraqi police.

Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Kevin O'Brien, Navy Visual News Service

SWAGGER WAGON

Rose Garden

Why No One Invades Switzerland

What Manner of Men Will They Be?

Josh Harris pointed out this quote from Arnold Dallimore's biography of George Whitefield. Dallimore notes our need to see "a mighty evangelical revival such as that which was experienced two hundred years ago" and the prayer that God will "raise up unto Himself certain young men whom He may use in this glorious employ."

"And what manner of men will they be? Men mighty in the Scriptures, their lives dominated by a sense of the greatness, the majesty and holiness of God, and their minds and hearts aglow with the great truths of the doctrines of grace. They will be men who have learned what it is to die to self, to human aims and personal ambitions; men who are willing to be 'fools for Christ's sake', who will bear reproach and falsehood, who will labour and suffer, and whose supreme desire will be, not to gain earth's accolades, but to win the Master's approbation when they appear before His awesome judgment seat. They will be men who will preach with broken hearts and tear-filled eyes, and upon whose ministries God will grant an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit, and who will witness 'signs and wonders following' in the transformation of multitudes of human lives."

 

Nicky B

It's not just about freedom of religion or property rights.

Muslims Give Obama Highest Job Approval; Mormons, Lowest

PRINCETON, NJ -- Muslim Americans continue to give President Barack Obama the highest job approval rating of any major religious group in the U.S., while Mormons give the president the lowest ratings.

From the American Thinker...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

By Randall Hoven

The Iraq War ends this month. The last combat brigade left August 19. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in 2003, will end August 31. September 1 marks the beginning of Operation New Dawn. Now that it's over, what did the Iraq War cost?

Here are examples of what some people had been saying about Iraq War costs.

"It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq..."
 - James Carville, the Financial Times.

"The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."
 - Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.

"First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars..." 
 - Christopher Hayes, The Nation.

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?

The CBO breaks that cost down over the eight calendar years of 2003-2010. Below is a picture of federal deficits over those years with and without Iraq War spending.

Sources: CBO and U.S. Statistical Abstract (see below).

Just for grins, use the above chart to dissect Christopher Hayes' statement that our current and future deficits are caused by "three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession."

Two of those three things -- the wars and tax cuts -- were in effect from 2003 through 2007. Do you see alarming deficits or trends from 2003 through 2007 in the above chart? No. In fact, the trend through 2007 is shrinking deficits. What you see is a significant upward tick in 2008, and then an explosion in 2009. Now, what might have happened between 2007 and 2008, and then 2009?

Democrats taking over both houses of Congress, and then the presidency, was what happened. Republicans wrote the budgets for the fiscal years through 2007. Congressional Democrats wrote the budgets for FY 2008 and on. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus." (The $814 billion figure is from the same CBO report as the Iraq War costs. See sources at end of article.)

The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion.

No one will say that $709 billion is not a lot of money. But first, that was spread over eight years. Secondly, let's put that in some perspective. Below are some figures for those eight years, 2003 through 2010.

• Total federal outlays: $22,296 billion.
• Cumulative deficit: $4,731 billion.
• Medicare spending: $2,932 billion.
• Iraq War spending: $709 billion.
• The Obama stimulus: $572 billion.

There is an important note to go along with that Obama stimulus number: the stimulus did not even start until 2009. By 2019, the CBO estimates the stimulus will have cost $814 billion.

If we look only at the Iraq War years in which Bush was President (2003-2008), spending on the war was $554B. Federal spending on education over that same time period was $574B.

So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

• Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
• Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
• Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
• Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
• Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
• The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
• During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

I've written elsewhere that the Iraq War was totally justified and even executed reasonably well. But even if you believe otherwise, there is no reasonable case that can be made to say it caused grave economic woes then or now.

Not only do the critics of the Iraq War make 300% errors in their numbers, but they also contradict themselves with abandon. When Obama was pushing he stimulus, he said,

Then you get the argument, "well this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." Whaddya think a stimulus is? (Laughter.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)

So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?

Aren't these also the same folks who tell us how well JFK and LBJ ran the economy back in the roaring '60s? During the eight years of 1961-69, 46% of all federal spending was on national defense. During President Bush's eight years, defense spending did not even average 20% of federal outlays. Under JFK/LBJ, defense spending was 8%-9% of GDP. Under Bush, it was about 4%.

How did the economy do so well in the 1960s, and so badly in the 2000s, when less than half as much of our resources were devoted to defense in that more recent term?

The questions are rhetorical. Defense spending, and the Iraq War in particular, was not the cause of our economic problems. I don't care if you hear it from James Carville, Ron Paul, or a Nobel Prize-winning economist. It is a lie.

Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day. He can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.

[Data sources: All data for 2009 and later are from the CBO's recent budget outlook (pdf here). For an accounting of Iraq war spending, see Box 1-3 of that report. For an accounting of stimulus spending, see Box 1-2 of that report. For summary federal budget numbers in 2009 and later, see Table 1 of that report.

Federal budget figures through 2008 are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract. See Table 457 for overall spending and deficit levels, Table 458 for debt levels, and Tables 459 and 461 for spending in specific categories.]

Religious freedom? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Religious freedom? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Written by Ken Blackwell
http://online.worldmag.com/2010/08/24/religious-freedom-fuhgeddaboudit/

At a press conference today at New York’s JFK International Airport, the Rev. Franklin Graham spoke to reporters prior to his departure on a U.S. government-funded tour of Europe. The son of famed evangelist Billy Graham has been commissioned by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to meet with European evangelical leaders to explain why U.S. foreign policy is not hostile to Christians.

Far-fetched? Of course. Equally far-fetched would be a State Department-sponsored tour of Africa and Asia by Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput, during which the Denver prelate would seek to assure Third World Catholics that, despite the Obama administration’s support for abortion worldwide, the foreign policy of this country is not directed against indigenous peoples.

Nor would you expect to see Secretary Clinton’s State Department pay for Rabbi Daniel Lapin to go to Israel to assure worried Israelis there that U.S. policy toward the Jewish state is actually friendly—despite President Obama’s pressure on Israelis to yield more and more territory on the West Bank to the PLO.

As much as we can—and should—celebrate ecumenism and religious pluralism in America, no one could imagine our State Department paying to send leading religious figures abroad—at taxpayer expense—to advance the policies of this administration.

Yet that is exactly what is happening with Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, the man who is spearheading the mosque at Ground Zero in New York. He is being given the opportunity to tour the Middle East and Muslim majority countries in Asia—at our expense—supposedly to promote U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary Clinton has been unusually silent on the subject of the Ground Zero mosque. She’s been quiet, as well, about the imam’s paid tour on behalf of the State Department. Yet she must have signed off on this high-profile junket. It’s happening on her watch.

We need a lot of answers. What, exactly, is Imam Rauf doing in these Muslim-majority states? He says he’s all for “moderation.” Will he be interceding in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia on behalf of Christians who are being murdered every day in these countries?

Last month, 10 aid workers were murdered execution-style by Islamists in Afghanistan. Six of the workers were Americans. Their offense? They were trying to bring modern medical healing to villagers whose standard of care is still back in the Middle Ages.

Will Imam Rauf cry out for these martyrs whose blood cries out to us? If he is not a voice for moderation where moderation is most desperately needed, what is he doing there?

It is very instructive that our cultural elites have no problem with the imam’s tax-funded trip. These are the same people who throw a fit any time a high school student in the United States is in the same room where a Christian prayer is offered. Can we really be sending Muslim clerics around the world and call it “outreach?”

Instead, why didn’t President Obama send him up in the space shuttle? Wasn’t outreach to Muslims supposed to have been NASA’s Job One? It certainly would have been cheaper to put an imam in orbit than to keep him traveling in style. And we could certainly monitor his speeches and conversations better if Imam Rauf were in the space shuttle. From every indication, this is one fellow who bears a lot of watching.

Hard hats and contractors in New York are joining the growing grassroots movement to resist this unconstitutional “establishment of religion” that is proceeding under the cover of multiculturalism, “outreach,” and interfaith understanding. These New Yorkers are signing pledges to refuse to work on Imam Rauf’s mosque at Ground Zero.

America’s religious freedom is the wonder of the world. Just this week it was announced that Dinesh D’Souza, a devout Catholic, had been named president of The King’s College in Manhattan. The King’s College is the only evangelical college in New York City.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Blackwell may have relied here on an erroneous press report. D’Souza defines himself as an “evangelical born-again Christian” who grew up Catholic but is a member of an evangelical church and has signed an evangelical statement of faith in accepting his new role as president of The King’s College.)

This is the kind of understanding, outreach, and religious dialogue we should applaud. It’s not the kind that will likely gain the support of The New York Times, but it nonetheless represents genuine ecumenism.

We have much to tell the world about how we have lived together peacefully in America. All here are free to worship and to pray as their conscience dictates. But we must recognize that if this mosque goes up at Ground Zero, it will be a defeat for religious freedom. It will represent a victory for fear and intimidation over open dialogue and freedom of conscience. If we permit this center of sedition to go up, the word on religious freedom will be: fuhgeddaboudit!

Oil Spill Timeline

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

Marinestan

via BLACKFIVE

It is right and proper to love the Marine Corps.

One unnamed Obama administration official was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "We have better operational coherence with virtually all of our NATO allies than we have with the U.S. Marine Corps."Some officials call the new Marine enclave in Nimruz Province "Marinestan" -- as if, out of a Kipling or Conrad novel, the Marines have gone rogue to set up their own independent province of operations.

As the man says, that's the price of having a service that is as reliable as the Marine Corps.  Sometimes the best thing to do with a stallion trained for war is to give him his head.

Nicky Says: Semper FI !! 

Also from the article, this gem...

Over the last two centuries, two truths have emerged about the Marine Corps. One, they defeat the toughest of America's adversaries under the worst of conditions. And two, periodically their way of doing things -- and their eccentric culture of self-regard -- so bothers our military planners that some higher-ups try either to curb their independence or end the Corps altogether.

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

A Prayer for our Nation

A Prayer for our Nation (RC Sproul)

Found this on the Ligonier Blog.   RC Sproul is one of the hero’s in the faith.

Our Father and our God, indeed You are our God, and Your sovereignty extends over all things. That as God, Your relevance and Your dominion can never be restricted merely to the realm of the spiritual or the religious, but that your sovereignty extends over all creation, over every aspect of our life and of our culture, over our government, over our church, over our schools, over our health, over our wealth, over our thinking, our planning, and our crying.  And so we, as your people, are pleading with you to have mercy upon us, to give us leaders who have a regard for You, who will regard Your name as holy, and who will understand that in whatever office they hold, they are to be your servants, for you have ordained them. And we ask that you would bring new life to your church and that we may begin our repentance at our own house and in our own churches as we plead with you to have mercy upon us as a nation, as a people, as a culture that the light of Christ may be rekindled with great glory and intense brightness in our land, and that there would be a revival of a knowledge of Thee without which our land will mourn and our people will perish. And we ask these things in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Bully Pulpit Review from CNBC

Obama is a Bully: Kneale

By: Dennis Kneale | CNBC Media & Technology Editor

URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/36776494/

Will someone please rein in our relentlessly hectoring President? Barrack Hussein Obama has taken his gift for inspirational oratory—one of the traits that got him elected—and turned it into something darker and more insidious. 

Bam is a bully. Bad enough that he bashes Wall Street, but this President has gone farther than any in modern history in putting the wrong kind of “bully” back into what Teddy Roosevelt had called the bully pulpit. 

Obama’s latest broadside came over the weekend, when he vehemently criticized the state of Arizona and its (Republican) governor for passing a tough new law on illegal immigration. 

The President called the measure “misguided” and all but labeled it un-American. He even ordered the Department of Justice, before the ink on this bill-signing has even dried, to examine the civil-rights “implications” of the new law. Seems like the courts and rights groups could handle that once any problem actually emerges. 

Can you remember any other modern President, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly criticizing a new law passed by any state? 

This is hubris at best and ignorance of the Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a rapacious federal government. Thus a President must step softly here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating. 

The new state law itself is disturbing, even detestable, and I don’t like it. It forces immigrants to carry with them proof of their legal status and lets cops demand to see the “papers” of anyone (read: any foreign-looking person) to make sure he didn’t sneak into the country. It smacks of Nazis in the Jewish ghetto in Poland. 

But it is the law, and Arizona’s people duly elected the legislators who voted for it. They acted, moreover, on an issue the feds clearly have botched—immigration—and are trying to protect the state’s citizens from an influx of drug-cartel violence from Mexico. 

Rather than trash an entire state, Bam could have privately lobbied Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and urged her to veto the bill. Or he could have said, simply, that he hoped to pass better solutions at the federal level.

That would have been statesmanlike, but this President gets pouty whenever anyone dares to disagree with him. He seems to view dissension not as healthy public debate but as a suspicious, pernicious challenge to his omnipotence and popularity. 

Obama the Bully, at his State of the Union address, had the temerity to criticize the Supreme Court of the United States for its new ruling that companies have a right to free speech in political campaign advertising (a right that unions already enjoyed, by the way). He did this as the justices themselves sat before him in the audience, paying their respects to a leader who showed them none. 

Perhaps President Obama had forgotten an American civics lesson: The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land. It is unseemly and disrespectful for a President to so bluntly and blatantly question the justices’ judgment and intent—especially right in front of their faces. 

I can’t remember of any other President in my memory having done this. Nixon maybe? An unfortunate comparison, indeed. 

Similarly, President Obama maligns Wall Street for trying to have a say in financial reform and lobbying for its interests, though this input is a vital ingredient in any democratic process. Yet Obama doesn’t criticize giant unions like the AFL-CIO and the SEIU when they similarly lobby on fin-reg. 

Why? Because the unions agree with him. Even though Wall Street has a far more legitimate claim to get involved in this debate than do the unions, which represent only 7% of the private work force and essentially should have no dog in this fight at all. 

Hmm, now that I think about it, nor can I recall any other modern President who has spent so much effort lambasting his immediate predecessor. Reagan didn’t do it to Carter. Clinton didn’t do it to the first George Bush. 

And the worst part is, we’re barely calling out Obama the Bully on this behavior at all. We are becoming entirely too accustomed to it, failing to see it for what it really is: a striking lack of civility, and an overflow of divisiveness, from a President who had promised to give us precisely the opposite.

Who were you carrying the stone for?

A fictional story...

One day Jesus said to his disciples: “I’d like you to carry a stone for me.” He didn’t give any explanation. So the disciples looked around for a stone to carry, and Peter, being the practical sort, sought out the smallest stone he could possibly find. After all, Jesus didn’t give any regulation for weight and size! So he put it in his pocket.  Jesus then said: “Follow Me.” He led them on a journey. About noontime Jesus had everyone sit down. He waved his hands and all the stones turned to bread. He said, “Now it’s time for lunch.” In a few seconds, Peter’s lunch was over.  When lunch was done Jesus told them to stand up. He said again, “I’d like you to carry a stone for me.” This time Peter said, “Aha! Now I get it!” So he looked around and saw a small boulder. He hoisted it on his back and it was painful, it made him stagger. But he said, “I can’t wait for supper.” Jesus then said: “Follow Me.” He led them on a journey, with Peter barely being able to keep up. Around supper time Jesus led them to the side of a river. He said, “Now everyone throw your stones into the water.” They did. Then he said, “Follow Me,” and began to walk. Peter and the others looked at him dumbfounded.  Jesus sighed and said, “Don’t you remember what I asked you to do?  Who were you carrying the stone for?”

From These Strange Ashes, by Elisabeth Elliot

The Valley of Vision

O God of my Exodus,

Great was the joy of Israel’s sons,
when Egypt died upon the shore,
Far greater the joy
when the Redeemer’s foe lay crushed
in the dust.

Jesus strides forth as the victor,
conqueror of death, hell, and all opposing might;
He bursts the bands of death,
tramples the powers of darkness down,
and lives forever.

He, my gracious surety,
apprehended for payment of my debt,
comes forth from the prison house of the grave
free, and triumphant over sin, Satan, and death.

Show me herein the proof that his vicarious offering is accepted,
that the claims of justice are satisfied,
that the devil’s sceptre is shivered,
that his wrongful throne is levelled.

Give me the assurance that in Christ I died,
in him I rose,
in his life I live,
in his victory i triumph,
in his ascension I shall be glorified.

Adorable Redeemer,
Thou who was lifted up upon a cross
art ascended to the highest heaven.
Thou, who as Man of sorrows
wast crowned with thorns,
art now as Lord of life wreathed with glory.

Once, no shame more deep than thine,
no agony more bitter,
no death more cruel.
Now, no exaltation more high,
no life more glorious,
no advocate more effective.

Thou art in the triumph car leading captive
thine enemies behind thee.

What more could be done than Thou hast done!
Thy death is my life,
Thy resurrection my peace,
Thy ascension my hope,
Thy prayers my comfort. 

 

- “Resurrection” from The Valley of Vision

Tunnel Vision?

Waiting for a tunnel...

Riding together on a train are Barack Obama, George W. Bush, a little old lady, and a buxom, young blonde girl.

The train goes into a dark tunnel and a few seconds later there is the sound of a loud slap.

When the train emerges from the tunnel, Bush has a bright red hand print on his cheek.

No one speaks.

The old lady thinks, 'Bush must have groped the blonde in the dark and she slapped him.'

The blonde girl thinks, 'Bush must have tried to grope me in the dark, but missed and fondled the old lady and she slapped him.'

Bush thinks, 'Obama must have groped the blonde in the dark. She tried to slap him but missed and got me instead.'

Obama thinks, 'I can't wait for another tunnel, so I can smack Bush again.'

SOVEREIGN GOD,

SOVEREIGN GOD,
Thy cause, not my own, engages my heart, and I appeal to Thee with greatest freedom to set up Thy kingdom in every place where Satan reigns; Glorify Thyself and I shall rejoice, for to bring honor to Thy name is my sole desire.

I adore Thee that Thou art God, and long that others should know it, feel it, and rejoice in it. O that men might love and praise Thee, that Thou mightest have all glory from the intelligent world! Let sinners be brought to Thee for Thy dear name! To the eye of reason everything respecting the conversion of others is as dark as midnight, but Thou can accomplish great things; the cause is Thine, and it is to Thy glory that men should be saved.

Lord, use me as Thou wilt; but, O, promise Thy cause, let Thy kingdom come, let Thy blessed interest be advanced in this world! O do Thou bring in great numbers to Jesus! Let me see that glorious day, and give me to grasp for multitudes of souls; let me be willing to die to that end; and while I live let me labour for Thee to the utmost of my strength, spending time profitably in this work, both in health and in weakness.

It is Thy cause and kingdom I long for, not my own. O, answer Thou my request!

From Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers

Revival–In Maine!?

Revival–In Maine!?

I am shamelessly copying this from Owen Strachan under the premise that the news is too good not to be shared, and that he said it better than I would.

http://owenstrachan.com/2010/03/22/revival-in-maine/

____________________________________________________________

Several hundred years ago, revival broke out in New England under the watchcare of America’s greatest pastor, Jonathan Edwards.  275 years later, it may be happening again.

From Downeast magazine, a secular publication covering life in Maine, comes this hugely unexpected news: Maine, one of the spiritually “darkest” states in New England (America’s least Christian region), is apparently experiencing a revival.  Evangelical churches emphasizing biblical literacy and doctrinal solidarity are seeing up to 20% increased attendance in recent days.  This, to say the least, is a shocker.

Here’s what Cynthia Anderson writes in “Sanctuary”, the article covering this seeming phenomenon (read the whole thing–it’s that encouraging):

The three Sunday services at Calvary Chapel regularly draw more than two thousand people. Turnout is similar ten miles away at Bangor Baptist Church, which has on its grounds two radio stations and the largest Christian school in the state. A few exits down Route 95 in Waterville, Faith Evangelical Free Church — originator of a popular YouTube series of skits based on the TV show The Office — also draws large crowds. Indeed, attendance at the state’s evangelical churches has swelled in recent years as mainline denominations have continued to struggle. According to a 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 37 percent of those Mainers who identify as Protestant now consider themselves evangelical.

The numbers, say religious experts and church leaders, suggest a surge of interest in Bible-based Christianity, particularly north of Portland. “It appears that there’s some sort of revival going on in central Maine,” says Ves Sheely, district superintendent of the Evangelical Free Church in New England. Sheely, who travels the state as he makes the rounds of the association’s sixty member churches, has observed new churches opening and attendance at existing ones rising. “I see an increased openness to spiritual life, here more than in other parts of New England. I see evidence of a new interest in Jesus.”

Others concur. “There is a trend of people going back to church here, especially to the more literally Bible-based churches,” says Jerry Mick, pastor of Bangor Baptist, where the nine hundred-person average weekly attendance reflects a 20 percent increase in two years. In the Bangor area alone there are more than forty churches, close to half of which are evangelical — including Nazarene, Baptist, Assembly of God, and non-denominational. Such religiosity is all the more notable given that the Pew study showed only 59 percent of Mainers are “absolutely certain” God exists, compared with 65 percent of those in the Northeast and 71 percent nationally.

The article, as one can see, doesn’t given a ton of hard data.  There’s a good amount of anecdotal evidence referenced here.  Furthermore, we all know that Christians have historically had a tendency to claim revival–and church growth–where it may or may not actually have happened.  If the testimony recorded here does reflect reality, however, this is a most unexpected and welcome development.

Can I give you a little context here?  I’m from Maine.  Real Maine–the deep country.  I am from a church that averaged between 30 and 70 people in attendance each week during my childhood.  Precious few people were saved during my time at First Baptist Church of East Machias.  This despite the faithful preaching of the gospel, the sacrificial evangelistic efforts of church members, and devoted members committed to imaging the gospel.  I knew of no revivals; my high school had perhaps 3-5 Christian students total.

When I went to college, I went to a vibrant church in Brunswick, Maine of between 200-300 members.  I thought it was a megachurch (seriously).  The congregation sponsored a radio ministry, had an education wing and pastor’s offices, and more.  I could barely believe my eyes.

Why do I share this?  Because, in my limited experience, revival in Maine–no, revival in New England–is almost unheard of.  Though far from Maine now, I keep tabs on my beloved home state, and I know that now, just as always, many churches fight for their very existence.  Many pastors work bivocationally.  Asbury’s circuit-riding has not died out; I know preachers who serve several tiny congregations that are the only gospel witnesses within miles.  If this revival (and other renewal efforts discussed by folks like Soong-Chang Rah) is indeed happening, and it seems it is, this is some of the most encouraging spiritual news I have ever heard regarding my home state and home region.  Ever.

I’m sure that many readers will lack a direct connection to Maine; whatever the case, would you join me in prayer for this development (and for other regions of our country and world)?  It may well be another confirmation that even in the darkest of times (a recent cover story by Newsweek showed that North American Christianity is indeed struggling in many cases), God has not forgotten His people.  As He has so often shown His church throughout the ages, He is faithful, He is strong to save, and His gospel of the kingdom is pushing back the thickest darkness through a mixed group of churches and faithful believers.

In the land of Edwards, it seems, revival has come again.

________________________________________________________________

To begin learning more about New England Christians:

New England Center for Expository Preaching (note the May 2010 pastor’s conf featuring Mark Dever)

NETS Institute for Church Planting

Bangor Baptist Church

Calvary Chapel of Bangor

Faith Evangelical Free Church

2008 Pew Survey

Think about it.....