It was later reported by this same reporter that Mike Goldfarb was insinuating that Rev Jeremiah Wright is an anti-semite like Rashid Khalidi. CNN also said that they checked with the Anti-Defamation League and the League said that they do not, nor have they ever, counted Wright as an anti-semite.
Friday, October 31, 2008
McCain Spokesman Mike Goldfarb Gets Owned by CNN's Rick Sanchez
You have got to see this. I can't believe how dramatic the "news" has become. I was glad to see a journalist call the person he is interviewing to the carpet. People who talk in public should be held accountable for whatever they say!
It was later reported by this same reporter that Mike Goldfarb was insinuating that Rev Jeremiah Wright is an anti-semite like Rashid Khalidi. CNN also said that they checked with the Anti-Defamation League and the League said that they do not, nor have they ever, counted Wright as an anti-semite.
It was later reported by this same reporter that Mike Goldfarb was insinuating that Rev Jeremiah Wright is an anti-semite like Rashid Khalidi. CNN also said that they checked with the Anti-Defamation League and the League said that they do not, nor have they ever, counted Wright as an anti-semite.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Defending Michelle Obama Redux
My sister-in-law forwarded a great e-mail that examined why people are afraid of Michelle Obama. The letter's author makes the point that these people may be more afraid of Michelle than they are of Barack. I'll comment after the letter in blue.Why white America perhaps fears Michelle more than Barack.
Excerpts from a 'Jack & Jill politics' newsletter:
As hard as it is to accept a black president, it's even harder to accept a black first lady. First Lady has always held a beloved sentimental mother/wife of the nation symbolism. Conservatives are not ready to have to look at this very BLACK woman with her degrees and her fierceness and see her as the epitome of the American mother/wife. Thiswill be a first for white people. They do not want this black woman in the White House as their first lady. That New Yorker cartoon was [actually] about Michelle - she was its focal point...look closely...she is the leader, the one starting the "revolution" they want you to imagine.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews said, in the course of covering the Obama candidacy, 'He (Barack Obama) brings none of the 'bad stuff, you know?"
By 'Bad Stuff', he meant the legacy of [whites] enslaving Africans in this country, keeping them as second-class citizens until 1965, a mere11 years before this country celebrated its 200th anniversary. You know, 'the original sin', or 'the birth defect', as Condi Rice called it.
Barack escapes this 'bad stuff' only because his mother was white and may have had ancestors involved in the slave trade; and also because Barack's father was not African American. He was full blooded African and therefore Barack had no ancestors enslaved by America - and so the white guilt factor is missing when they think of him. HOWEVER, NO SUCH LUCK WITH MICHELLE!
Michelle Obama is a direct threat and lightening bolt against White Superiority. Because, she's Black...VISIBLY BLACK... But it's important to note, she does not, in any way, shape, or form, contour to the acceptable Black Pathologies that enable White Supremacy to sigh with relief. [welfare mother, fatherless child, druggie, etc.] Michelle was raised in a neighborhood. In a home. With TWO parents. No child revolving in and out of jail. Raised by a Black man who not only provided for his family, but did so, WITH A DISABILITY. Her mother had a working class job - secretary- but it was taken ONLY after s he had seen her youngest child settle into HIGH SCHOOL.
Michelle Obama's poise, her confidence, her aura - that was created by that humble Black man, who by all accounts, adored her. He told her that she is worthy, and so, when you have that told to you by the first man who loves and prot ects you, you seek that validation of that in your choice of mate, you'll settle for nothing less, and Michelle hasn't.
Michelle Obama, doesn't fit any of the acceptable Black pathologies. And when you don't fit the acceptable Black pathologies, then you must be destroyed. Michelle Obama has become the face of the Black America whose existence is routinely denied by this country. Think about it.
In ONE generation, the face of this 'Invisible America' has gone from living on the top floor of a bungalow, to the possibility of living in The White House. And yet, Michelle Obama, refuses to say "I'm special", in order to give white America its usual security blanket [that she is one of the exceptions rather than the rule], So what should be done?
Beat her down into submission.
Michelle Obama represents everything we black women want our daughters to be. When we stand up for her we stand up for ourselves. No other women in the world are more neglected and abused as African women period. Michelle looks like [our] daughters, her daughters look like us.
We love the way Barack looks at her we adore the way he looks at his daughters. The Obamas represent the hope that we can be loved by our men and they will support us in whatever we do. Little African American girls need a vision and dream of what it is like to be loved by a man who looks just like them.
Is America ready for a First Lady who looks like her? A regular black woman? Not a passable biracial curly haired girl that they call black, but a regular black woman from the south side of Chicago ? With dark skin?
Is she going to be the face of The Woman on the largest pedestal in the country? A self-confessed "loud-mouth" black woman? If the Obamas succeed, it turns white supremacy upside down. And not because a black man is in the White House; but, because a black woman will be there who didn't have to come in the back door to lie in bed with the president.
I loved this letter because it made me think of things in a couple of different ways. I looked at the political cartoon mentioned as being primarily focused on Barack but Michelle could be looked at as the focal point. Also I agree she does represent everything that I want my 2-year-old daughter to grow into. I know that scares people prejudice against black people. If they can think of us as not as good or somehow inferior, their prejudice seems justified to them. But the Obamas break all the stereotypes people use to put black folks down. It's Bull Connors worse nightmare come true. I also really liked the point that the Presidents of the pass having black/slave mistresses was not a problem. It's a bigger problem that she has a legitimate claim to be next to him. No one has more right.
Obama on the "the Daily Show"
Last night after Obama Infomercial, Barak Obama was a guest on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show". I thought it was funny. I think The two men genuinely like each other and Obama is comfortable at laughing at himself. It makes me think that all the talk of his "messiah" status has not gone to his head.
A Great Editorial from G4
One of my favorite television is G4. They give great information on Video games, movies, television, comic books, and technology. Here is an article they just put on their website.
I agree with Adam Sessler's conclusions but i wouldn't get as angry as he did. He ripped the New Yorker apart.
Sessler's Soapbox: Game Journalism Exclusives, "New Yorker" @$$holesPosted by Patrick Roche-Sowa - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:40 PMIn case you missed it, the New Yorker recently posted an article online profiling Cliff Bleszinski and his upcoming game, Gears of War 2. Go ahead and do your homework, Adam will make more sense if you're well versed in the subject matter.
Now that you took some time with a respected publication, listen to what Adam has to say about the subject. When mainstream journalism takes a close look at the gaming industry, the outcome is usually hit or miss. This time, Adam thinks it was a miss. Not only do they talk down to gamers, but they also scoff at the idea that gaming journalism outlets depend on secrets and exclusives. Because, you know, the mainstream media has never engaged in backroom agreements, timed exclusives, and previously arranged interview parameters. Adam mad. Adam smash.
I agree with Adam Sessler's conclusions but i wouldn't get as angry as he did. He ripped the New Yorker apart.
Oldest Hebrew Script May Have Been Found
On his blog today James White has put the following text. I suggest looking at the article he has linked to. I will be following this story.
Super Ancient Hebrew Inscription Found?
10/30/2008 - James White
SillyBrit1 sent me a link to this article on the possible finding of the most ancient example of Hebrew thus far known. It will be interesting to see if this find pans out and is established by further research.
A Reproach on Christ
Nothing makes us Christians look worse than fighting among ourselves. It shames all of us. And worse makes God look bad. He told us to love one another.
The one comforting thought I had after seeing this video was: "Well, at least
I don't go to that church."
The one comforting thought I had after seeing this video was: "Well, at least
I don't go to that church."
A little late but a good one
While I was on YouTube looking for Obama's Infomercial, I found a video made recording a fighting game they found on the internet. It's Obama and Hillary Clinton duking it out in an animated street fight. It's well done. I realize the primaries are well over but it's still a kick (pun intended). The website is miniclip.com and has more up-to-date flash games. Unfortunately I did not see a street fight game with Obama and McCain. Sounds like something that should be done in Mugen. (see my mugen posts).
Obama's Infomercial
Tonight,October 29th, Obama bought a 30 minute time slot on major multiple television networks. I missed it because I was at Bible Study, but Obama's campaign posted it on its YouTube Channel. I thought it was great. It was a good summary of why Obama believes he can be a good President. He summarized his economic plan. There was also a quick review of Obama's political career. The program was geared to show people how much like everyone he is. I'm not an economic expert but I think that his plan is better than McCain. He made a lot of promises. No other commercial interruptions. I sure hope he can keep them. I've posted the video below.
The thing that amazes me is McCain's response earlier today. He said that if he was to become President no one would be able to delay the start of the World Series. Think about the Implication. The "World Series", a sporting event in which the only thing the American people get out of it is entertainment, is implied to be more important than not only anything Barak Obama has to say but also talking about how to fix the mess we are in!
He came off poorly. Like he was jealous that Obama had the resources to pull off such an advertisement. I've never quite seen anything like this before in a Presidential Election and I remember all of them since Reagan was first elected.
The thing that amazes me is McCain's response earlier today. He said that if he was to become President no one would be able to delay the start of the World Series. Think about the Implication. The "World Series", a sporting event in which the only thing the American people get out of it is entertainment, is implied to be more important than not only anything Barak Obama has to say but also talking about how to fix the mess we are in!
He came off poorly. Like he was jealous that Obama had the resources to pull off such an advertisement. I've never quite seen anything like this before in a Presidential Election and I remember all of them since Reagan was first elected.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Onion News Report
I saw this video on the Black Snob blog today and I laughed really hard. Yes, It's a joke but it is a well-done joke!
New Obama Ad Stick it to McCain
I was alerted to this Ad by an article on the Black Snob blog. It's a real good point: If McCain admits that the economy is not his strong suite, they why pick someone who is no better at the dealing with the economy than he is.
Canonicity: Part 2 - The Apocrahpa
Many times Roman Catholics cite Protestants as not having the whole Old Testament. They are referring to a set of books called the Apocrypha and they were written between the final book of the Old Testament, Malachi, and the 1st Century AD. We are talking about a span of about 400 years. The books are called the apocryphal because no one knows indisputably who wrote them and the Jews themselves do not list them in their official list (canon) of inspired by God scripture. This set of books were apparently first written down in Greek while the other canonical Jewish scriptures are originally written in predominantly Hebrew with a smattering of Aramaic. The Apocrypha does contain similarities to the Old Testament. It contains histories that can be be validated from contemporaneous secular sources, poetry, wisdom literature, and additional chapters of Esther and Daniel. What I read was that when the 70 Jewish Scholars translated the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek bringing the Septuagint (which is the translation that we know Jesus, the Jews, the 1st Century church, and the 1st Century world used along with the Hebrew copies and exists today) into existence there were rules that were followed as to whether or not a book would be included or not. As I remember them they were were as follows:
1. It must have been inspired by God.
2. Prophetic books must have contained prophecy that they knew had come to pass.
3. The books must primarily be in Hebrew which is why the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel were ignored.
4. Not tainted by Hellenism (Greek thought and philosophy).
I may be missing others rules they followed but one criteria that amazed me is that just because a book is true isn't enough to make it scripture. Again, by definition, scripture is true but not all truth is scripture.
For example, in the Apocrypha, there are 2 or 4 books (depending on the edition you are reading) called the Maccabees that tells the story of how the Jews temporarily succeeded in revolting against the Greek conqueror Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and overlord of Palestine in the 165 BC. Many aspects of the stories can be directly traced to the Bible and to history. Antiochus did indeed set up a statue of Zeus in the temple re-built by the returned Jewish exiles and tried to force the Jews to worship it. For a time, they fought and was able to rededicate the temple. It's celebrated today as Hannukuk. Antiochus is indeed one of the major Antichrists of history. His action of profaning the temple was prophesied in Daniel "the abomination the causes desolation" in Daniel 9:27;11:31;12:11. Here, as an aside, I must also point out that Daniel may have not only been talking about Anitochus because Jesus quoted Daniel in talking about eschalogical events (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14) meaning that there is another "abomination that causes desolation" waiting to be revealed. Therefore I'm inclined to think that the Maccabees books are mostly historically accurate. Then why is it left out? Because although it is important and historical, it does not, tried as I might, equip one for service to God. There was nothing that I could see that helped me live a more holy life.
Another example: There are 3 more stories about Daniel in the Apocrypha. I think they were left out because I think they were suspected of not being true. The Daniel in these stories is not meek or humble as he is in the canonical stories. He seems rude and haughty even to king Darius whom is also in the Bible stories. I also saw nothing that fit the criteria for scripture that Paul gave Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16,17. they also seemed "cleverly invented" to me.
There is also a book wise proverbs in the Apocrypha called Ecclesiasticus. Most of these proverbs are in the canonical Proverbs and Ecclesiastes which is fine. however some of them also contain Greek philosophy. I was alerted to this when i was studying what the Bible teaches on "free will". The Bible always teaches that we do have free will in that we do make choices that matter, however God's purposes win out. I will have to post more detail about this at a different time but my point is that I read Erasmus' essay from 500 years ago called On the Freedom of the Will and a verse from Ecclesiasticus was used to make his point that we do have free will, but because scripture is difficult to understand that is no way to know for sure. He used that verse because it emphatically says that we have free will. I admit that as a Protestant I immediately thought he lost the argument because he could not use any canonical scripture to agree with Ecclesiasticus fully. Martin Luther wrote a response to Erasmus' work soon after and ripped him apart (more on this in a different post). Ecclesiaticus is tainted. There is no verse in the Hebrew Bible that says our human will can over-rule God and what he wants to do.
As a final point on the Apocrypha there is a song that is said to have been sung by Azariah, one of the Daniel's friends who was thrown int the fiery furnace when he refused to worship an idol Nebuchadnezzar set up, praising God for his deliverance. I have no idea why it was left out of our canon. Also a prayer by King Manasseh of Judah that he prayed confessing his sins when he went into captivity and God heard him and delivered him. our cannon has the fact but not the prayer. I have no idea why this passage were left out either. What I know for sure I'm not going to be adding books into the Bible or taking them out.
If you haven't read the Apocrypha, and you are interested in this subject, you should read it. Just to calm you own fears that you may be missing something. You're not. God will give you the peace you need.
1. It must have been inspired by God.
2. Prophetic books must have contained prophecy that they knew had come to pass.
3. The books must primarily be in Hebrew which is why the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel were ignored.
4. Not tainted by Hellenism (Greek thought and philosophy).
I may be missing others rules they followed but one criteria that amazed me is that just because a book is true isn't enough to make it scripture. Again, by definition, scripture is true but not all truth is scripture.
For example, in the Apocrypha, there are 2 or 4 books (depending on the edition you are reading) called the Maccabees that tells the story of how the Jews temporarily succeeded in revolting against the Greek conqueror Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and overlord of Palestine in the 165 BC. Many aspects of the stories can be directly traced to the Bible and to history. Antiochus did indeed set up a statue of Zeus in the temple re-built by the returned Jewish exiles and tried to force the Jews to worship it. For a time, they fought and was able to rededicate the temple. It's celebrated today as Hannukuk. Antiochus is indeed one of the major Antichrists of history. His action of profaning the temple was prophesied in Daniel "the abomination the causes desolation" in Daniel 9:27;11:31;12:11. Here, as an aside, I must also point out that Daniel may have not only been talking about Anitochus because Jesus quoted Daniel in talking about eschalogical events (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14) meaning that there is another "abomination that causes desolation" waiting to be revealed. Therefore I'm inclined to think that the Maccabees books are mostly historically accurate. Then why is it left out? Because although it is important and historical, it does not, tried as I might, equip one for service to God. There was nothing that I could see that helped me live a more holy life.
Another example: There are 3 more stories about Daniel in the Apocrypha. I think they were left out because I think they were suspected of not being true. The Daniel in these stories is not meek or humble as he is in the canonical stories. He seems rude and haughty even to king Darius whom is also in the Bible stories. I also saw nothing that fit the criteria for scripture that Paul gave Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16,17. they also seemed "cleverly invented" to me.
There is also a book wise proverbs in the Apocrypha called Ecclesiasticus. Most of these proverbs are in the canonical Proverbs and Ecclesiastes which is fine. however some of them also contain Greek philosophy. I was alerted to this when i was studying what the Bible teaches on "free will". The Bible always teaches that we do have free will in that we do make choices that matter, however God's purposes win out. I will have to post more detail about this at a different time but my point is that I read Erasmus' essay from 500 years ago called On the Freedom of the Will and a verse from Ecclesiasticus was used to make his point that we do have free will, but because scripture is difficult to understand that is no way to know for sure. He used that verse because it emphatically says that we have free will. I admit that as a Protestant I immediately thought he lost the argument because he could not use any canonical scripture to agree with Ecclesiasticus fully. Martin Luther wrote a response to Erasmus' work soon after and ripped him apart (more on this in a different post). Ecclesiaticus is tainted. There is no verse in the Hebrew Bible that says our human will can over-rule God and what he wants to do.
As a final point on the Apocrypha there is a song that is said to have been sung by Azariah, one of the Daniel's friends who was thrown int the fiery furnace when he refused to worship an idol Nebuchadnezzar set up, praising God for his deliverance. I have no idea why it was left out of our canon. Also a prayer by King Manasseh of Judah that he prayed confessing his sins when he went into captivity and God heard him and delivered him. our cannon has the fact but not the prayer. I have no idea why this passage were left out either. What I know for sure I'm not going to be adding books into the Bible or taking them out.
If you haven't read the Apocrypha, and you are interested in this subject, you should read it. Just to calm you own fears that you may be missing something. You're not. God will give you the peace you need.
Canonicity: Part 1 - Introduction
Just Because A Book is in Hebrew or Greek, does not make a book scripture and there was and is no nefarious plot to keep books out of the Bible or from the public. When I was in my early twenties, I really thought about such questions because I had heard of many, many books written 2000 years ago or more that talk about God or give insight and these books were left out of the Bible. I wanted to know why. In my research I discovered that many of these books were not hidden! In fact many of the them are readily available in English. Also many time books that did make it into our bible were once considered by some Christians as books to be left out like Song of Solomon (for being too sexual), Revelations (for being too hard to understand), and the whole Old Testament (for being too Jewish). What I found out was that I had to delve into history to understand how the 66 books of the Bible were collected into a single library. Why are some books left out and others included?
The conclusion that I have come to is that scripture itself is most qualified to determine what is and what is not scripture.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16,17
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:16-21
Notice, that a book being "true" is not a criteria for scripture. Because it's inspired by God we know it's true. But truth isn't enough to require faith and practice. Scripture must be inspired from God and it must be useful in making you more like Jesus. This takes teaching, correcting, training and even rebuking. God wants us to be equipped to do good. The bible is the only thing I have ever read that fits these criteria. All 66 books fit this criteria.
I am going to be doing a series of posts. This first one is about the Apocrapha. Followed by the Book of Enoch, Jewish Myths, Gnostic Texts, and then 2nd and 3rd Century apocraphal texts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and others. I want to explore these texts and discuss why they are not in the Bible. There are good reasons! We will be looking at why they do meet the criteria the Bible itself gives as seen in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 2 Peter 1:16-21. I probable will not talk much about how our Biblical cannon was formed but I may just point out the reference for more information and instead focus on why these "other" texts were excluded.
I invite comment and please let me know if you think the work i am discussing should have been included and why.
Regime Change
I have decided that single blog does not fit all my interests. I have decided to split things up a bit so that I can better structure my thoughts. This will continue to be my main blog, containing news, articles, videos, movie and television reviews, and such that I find interesting. However because I come across widgets and gadgets I like, as well as graphical user interface stuff I wanna test and new technologies , I will be posting those in a separate blog called: Favorite Gadgets. And thing like fictional character art and profiles, my Mugen and video game projects, and articles will be in my blog called: Favorite Fiction. (Which doesn't have anything on it yet. I may move articles from the Main blog, but I haven't decided yet.) Thanks for your support and reading my blog!
Monday, October 27, 2008
California Proposition 8 and the Word of God
I am a resident of California. When I vote November 4, 2008 I will not only be voting for the next President of the United States, I will be voting on state propositions. I don't know if our proposition to uphold the traditional definition of Marriage (Proposition 8) is being reported on in other parts of the nation but it is a big deal here. I have been given it a lot of thought so I thought that I would post something about it. Let's first look at what the Proposition 8 actually says:
There are several concerns about I have with Prop 8:
1. I remember the election of 2000 and I did vote to pass Proposition 22. It bothered me when 4 California State Supreme Court Judges decided to overturn the law I helped pass. The voters of California passed that law, Judges are not supposed to overturn law or make new laws. They are supposed to interpret and uphold laws that voters pass. They effectively re-defined what "marriage" is and all Prop 8 is doing putting it back the way it was before May 2008.
2. Under fiscal impact, opponents of the Prop 8, says that we should not pass it and allow California to be a haven for homosexuals who want to marry their partners because they will bring more money to California.
3. One argument against Prop 8 is that it singles out homosexuals and denies them the right to marry - a fundamental right - and could set a precedent for limiting the rights of select groups. I don't buy it because in no way does defining marriage traditionally take away the rights homosexuals already have in California under domestic partnership laws. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Changing the definition means that it is no longer "marriage". Can we call a rectangle a "triangle"? No! A rectangle has 4 sides and cannot be a triangle! Changing the definition means that language has no meaning any more.
4. Another argument against Prop 8 is that it is primarily backed by Mormons in Utah. I have not checked this out, but I don't think that it matters. I don't agree with all of Mormonism, but if they say that same-sex marriage is wrong, at least at that point they agree with the Bible, and if you agree with the Bible then you must agree with them on that. I don't look at voting "yes" on 8 as agreeing with the Mormon church, but I know it is agreeing with God.
5. We should be way more concerned with the slippery slope of what changing the definition of Marriage really means. If we say that marriage is "between consenting adults" then what is keep a man from marrying multiple women? Or vice versa? Why stop there? You could marry your pet. Or why not marry your child? Where do you draw the line? Two generations ago, no one would have ever thought that "marriage" would be open for re-definition. What about in 2 more generations?
6. Another argument against Prop 8 is that we can't use religious sensibilities to dictate government policy. I have 2 problems with this: first it's not completely religious. I mean on one level we are talking about the definition of one of the bedrock of human society: how we think, raise and educate or children, and what it means to be a family. Why do all religions and cultures define marriage as being between a man and woman? It's only been in recent years that this has been challenged. Why? Because its the fundamental definition of what marriage is. Where did we get it from? It could have been any number of other things. Why would it come down to us this way? The only answer that makes sense is the answer the Bible gives: God said so. Second, "separation of church and state" is a facade. It is what we tell ourselves so that we can ease our conscience so we can do what we want to do in public instead of what God wants us to do. Ask yourself: "why are all men created equal"? Why should the weak be protected? Why should I care how I live my life affects people around me? I do not think for a second that anyone would come to these ideas without God. If evolution is correct (I smell another post), then it does not make sense that these ideas would have ever come to mind. "Survival of the fittest". "Only the strong are worthy to thrive and reproduce". These are the ideas that would drive an evolutionary world view and would fully characterize our government if not for the power of God. I maintain that we know that all people are created equal and should be given the same basic rights only because God said so. If that is true...then we should define those rights by what that God says.
7. For me the nail that drives down the reasons I will vote "Yes" on proposition 8 is that the word of God is clear on the subject. As one who says that Jesus is my Lord. My Savior. My Master. I must love what He loves. Hate what He hates. I am trying to follow in my Master's footsteps. God does not hate homosexuals. He loves them like He loves all of us. And like all of us, He calls us to His best. It's just a sin. No worse then any other sin people commit. God does not have some special place in hell for homosexuals worse than where the liars are going. Sometimes what He knows is best is not what we think is best. This is tough. By taking this stand some would call me a bigot at worst, ignorant and misguided at best. And on the surface, people are asking does it really matter? Why is it wrong to love someone even if its someone of the same gender? Aside from the physical and emotional pain that such a lifestyle causes and can sometimes be invisible to the participants and observers, God told us not to do it. End of story. If you don't like it, talk to God about it. As one who claims to belong to God, you must vote for prop 8. If you disagree then you have to prove that God has no problem with homosexuality.
Here are two scriptures that you would have to respond to:
Sounds familiar? The Bible is not just talking about the Roman Empire of the 1st century but of America in the 21st Century. Here is an example of what the Bible has to say about marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1-7.
Unless you wanna argue that the Bible contradicts itself you can't say that a husband should have one wife and a wife should have one husband and then say that same-sex unions glorify God. They don't fit. The only way the 2 scriptures I appealed to can be reconciled is if same-sex unions are not defined as marriage. If society wants to ignore God's law it can do it without adding the insult to injury by re-defining marriage.
CA General Elections Propositions - Get more Docstoc Buzz
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.In California, we can get all the initiatives and propositions summarized for the voters. Here is a link so that you can see it yourself: CA General Elections Propositions . Here is how the document gives the background on Proposition 8:
• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of
millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
• In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
BACKGROUND
In March 2000, California voters passed
Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. In May 2008, the California
Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by
Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage
to a relationship between a man and a woman
violated the equal protection clause of the California
Constitution. It also held that individuals of the
same sex have the right to marry under the California
Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage
between individuals of the same sex is currently valid
or recognized in the state.
There are several concerns about I have with Prop 8:
1. I remember the election of 2000 and I did vote to pass Proposition 22. It bothered me when 4 California State Supreme Court Judges decided to overturn the law I helped pass. The voters of California passed that law, Judges are not supposed to overturn law or make new laws. They are supposed to interpret and uphold laws that voters pass. They effectively re-defined what "marriage" is and all Prop 8 is doing putting it back the way it was before May 2008.
2. Under fiscal impact, opponents of the Prop 8, says that we should not pass it and allow California to be a haven for homosexuals who want to marry their partners because they will bring more money to California.
3. One argument against Prop 8 is that it singles out homosexuals and denies them the right to marry - a fundamental right - and could set a precedent for limiting the rights of select groups. I don't buy it because in no way does defining marriage traditionally take away the rights homosexuals already have in California under domestic partnership laws. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Changing the definition means that it is no longer "marriage". Can we call a rectangle a "triangle"? No! A rectangle has 4 sides and cannot be a triangle! Changing the definition means that language has no meaning any more.
4. Another argument against Prop 8 is that it is primarily backed by Mormons in Utah. I have not checked this out, but I don't think that it matters. I don't agree with all of Mormonism, but if they say that same-sex marriage is wrong, at least at that point they agree with the Bible, and if you agree with the Bible then you must agree with them on that. I don't look at voting "yes" on 8 as agreeing with the Mormon church, but I know it is agreeing with God.
5. We should be way more concerned with the slippery slope of what changing the definition of Marriage really means. If we say that marriage is "between consenting adults" then what is keep a man from marrying multiple women? Or vice versa? Why stop there? You could marry your pet. Or why not marry your child? Where do you draw the line? Two generations ago, no one would have ever thought that "marriage" would be open for re-definition. What about in 2 more generations?
6. Another argument against Prop 8 is that we can't use religious sensibilities to dictate government policy. I have 2 problems with this: first it's not completely religious. I mean on one level we are talking about the definition of one of the bedrock of human society: how we think, raise and educate or children, and what it means to be a family. Why do all religions and cultures define marriage as being between a man and woman? It's only been in recent years that this has been challenged. Why? Because its the fundamental definition of what marriage is. Where did we get it from? It could have been any number of other things. Why would it come down to us this way? The only answer that makes sense is the answer the Bible gives: God said so. Second, "separation of church and state" is a facade. It is what we tell ourselves so that we can ease our conscience so we can do what we want to do in public instead of what God wants us to do. Ask yourself: "why are all men created equal"? Why should the weak be protected? Why should I care how I live my life affects people around me? I do not think for a second that anyone would come to these ideas without God. If evolution is correct (I smell another post), then it does not make sense that these ideas would have ever come to mind. "Survival of the fittest". "Only the strong are worthy to thrive and reproduce". These are the ideas that would drive an evolutionary world view and would fully characterize our government if not for the power of God. I maintain that we know that all people are created equal and should be given the same basic rights only because God said so. If that is true...then we should define those rights by what that God says.
7. For me the nail that drives down the reasons I will vote "Yes" on proposition 8 is that the word of God is clear on the subject. As one who says that Jesus is my Lord. My Savior. My Master. I must love what He loves. Hate what He hates. I am trying to follow in my Master's footsteps. God does not hate homosexuals. He loves them like He loves all of us. And like all of us, He calls us to His best. It's just a sin. No worse then any other sin people commit. God does not have some special place in hell for homosexuals worse than where the liars are going. Sometimes what He knows is best is not what we think is best. This is tough. By taking this stand some would call me a bigot at worst, ignorant and misguided at best. And on the surface, people are asking does it really matter? Why is it wrong to love someone even if its someone of the same gender? Aside from the physical and emotional pain that such a lifestyle causes and can sometimes be invisible to the participants and observers, God told us not to do it. End of story. If you don't like it, talk to God about it. As one who claims to belong to God, you must vote for prop 8. If you disagree then you have to prove that God has no problem with homosexuality.
Here are two scriptures that you would have to respond to:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:21-27
Sounds familiar? The Bible is not just talking about the Roman Empire of the 1st century but of America in the 21st Century. Here is an example of what the Bible has to say about marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1-7.
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Unless you wanna argue that the Bible contradicts itself you can't say that a husband should have one wife and a wife should have one husband and then say that same-sex unions glorify God. They don't fit. The only way the 2 scriptures I appealed to can be reconciled is if same-sex unions are not defined as marriage. If society wants to ignore God's law it can do it without adding the insult to injury by re-defining marriage.
CA General Elections Propositions - Get more Docstoc Buzz
Friday, October 24, 2008
Defending Michelle Obama
It is a shame that such an article is even needed. I thank God for the post by the Black Snob she posted today. Read her article. I thought it was well done and extremely accurate. Some of the insults and criticisms again Mrs. Obama has been awful. She isn't running for President. While I''m sure she is going to supporting Barak, giving him some advice (she is just as educated and intelligent as he is; and more than some if not most of her detractors), Michelle will not be the decision maker and breaker.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Possible Flash Trailer
Reelcomix.com has posted a possible trailer for a movie based on The Flash. They were not sure if it is real or not because you would think that if such a thing really existed lots of people would be talking about. I like the trailer. I thought that it was interesting. I have to admit that I am not sure if it is real or not but I hope it is.
Cartoons and Politics
I have been recently following the blog of the name "The Black Snob". Today there were couple of political cartoons posted there today. Of course i nearly feel off onto the floor laughing. I thought they were well-done and say somethings about Palin and McCain I agree with. One of these cartoons was an interactive flash movie. It got me to thinking though: Was anyone offended? I remember how taken-a-back so many of us was when the New Yorker ran a political cartoon a few months ago depicting Barak as a Muslim and his wife Michelle as a stereotypical angry black revolutionary. Remember? If you don't I'm posting both cartoons side-by-side. Let's look at them objectively. The cartoon from the Black Snob blog was drawn by
Zina Saunders' from her Drawger gallery of political art and the one about the Obamas from the New Yorker are below.
I was offended by the New Yorker cartoon because it says things about the Obamas that are inflammatory and untrue, setting aside the fact that the cartoon was supposed to be mocking people's fears by showing how untrue they are...something that was lost on some people. Does the McCain and Palin cartoons do the same thing? I don't think so. I really do see the Republican ticket as children playing house...all the while asserting maturity and knowledge of how the world works. Failed economic and foreign policies stay failures until they are changed and I don't see the Republican ticket making any significant changes other than what the current administration is currently doing. Here is the link to the page imagining what a Sarah Palin Presidency may be like (also from the Black Snob blog).
Zina Saunders' from her Drawger gallery of political art and the one about the Obamas from the New Yorker are below.
 |
IT Project - Inventory Compiling: Selecting Plots
In my chosen career I write software. I work for General Dynamic and I am contracted to the US Forest Service. I basically write software that analyzes data and generate reports on plants and trees in California's 18 national forests. One program I just finished recently is a draft that allows a user to select forest data by plot.A plot is segment of land on which data is recorded and then loaded into an oracle database. When I finished the program I wrote a draft of a users guide and have begun looking at various ways of delivering that users guide. I turned the document into a PDF file and loaded it into the ISSUU website to get the following document. Check it out.
We Have One Redeemer
I wanted to be clear that I really like GodTube. It is a way for people to post ideas and self-publish their ministries. The problem is that people can post anything; even things that aren't true. For the most part Roman Catholicism and Protestants share somethings in common. Unfortunately one doctrine that we must vehemently disagree about is the Roman Catholic dogma concerning Mary's role in redeeming humanity. I also want to be clear that there are catholics who reject Marian dogma but it's what is taught from the Pope on down. It's one of the Marian Dogmas in which Mary, the mother is Jesus, is called our "coredemptrix". This doctrine alleges that Mary herself was an active participant in saving us from our sins. Look at the following video:
I disagree with Dr. Mark Miravalle. The main problem I have with his arguments is that he bases them on the idea that saints and popes called Mary our coredemptrix. This irks me because no one can prove that anyone in the first century looked at Mary this way. No where in the New Testament is Mary put on a level anywhere near Jesus or that she was immaculately conceived herself nor of her sinless status. These were all invented later on. Look at the following scriptures:
I have never heard of read of Roman Catholics being able to respond to how their Marian dogmas do not conflict with scripture. No where in any of these scriptures is Mary's name mentioned. Jesus is the only one that can save us from sin and death.
I disagree with Dr. Mark Miravalle. The main problem I have with his arguments is that he bases them on the idea that saints and popes called Mary our coredemptrix. This irks me because no one can prove that anyone in the first century looked at Mary this way. No where in the New Testament is Mary put on a level anywhere near Jesus or that she was immaculately conceived herself nor of her sinless status. These were all invented later on. Look at the following scriptures:
He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
- Acts 4:11-12
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
- 1 Timothy 2:3-6
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
- Romans 3:21-26
I have never heard of read of Roman Catholics being able to respond to how their Marian dogmas do not conflict with scripture. No where in any of these scriptures is Mary's name mentioned. Jesus is the only one that can save us from sin and death.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Non-response to Terrence Howard
I read on ReelComix.com that MTV finally has been able to get close to an executive at Marvel productions to get a statement on Terrence Howard being ousted.
MTV caught up with a Marvel exec to try and get him to address the rumors of the re-casting of Terrence Howard and they got a very typical wishy washy answer that says pretty much yes. Why? Because it doesn't say NO which is what they would say if they wanted to keep Terrence involved and happy. MTV quotes the exec;
It might be a rumor but considering Terrence Howard pretty much confirmed it... no need in beating around the bush.That [‘Hollywood Reporter’ story] was not an announcement. That was, as it tends to happen in the business, is rumors and leaks and things like that. I do think there will be clarity soon.”
Yes, I think it's a bad answer and doesn't answer anything. It sounds like they may be changing their idea! I hope so. I love Iron man, I'll probably go see the sequel regardless who is playing Rhodes. My wife has already said she was going to boycott if Terrence Howard is not in it.
Update on "Little Big Planet" versus Islam
I found the following article today and I have put pasted it in almost entirety:
Sony's unexpected decision to delay the release of Game-of-the-Year candidate Little Big Planet over the inclusion of two sentences from the Qur'an in an LBP soundtrack song stunned gamers late last week.
But the PlayStation 3 maker, burned in 2007 by a religion-based controversy involving FPS game Resistance and the Church of England, was undoubtedly being cautious. An American Islamic leader, however, says that delaying and editing LBP was the wrong move.
As reported by Edge Online, M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. (left), head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked:
Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted... The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive...
[Mohammed] defended the rights of his enemies to critique him in any way even if it was offensive to his own Islamic sensibilities or respect for Koranic scripture... To demand that [the game] be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based.
The fact that the music writer is a devout Muslim should highlight that at the core of this issue is not about offending ‘all Muslims,’ but only about freedom of expression and the free market...
I personally must say that I agree with Jasser that no one including Muslims and Christians should assert their freedom of expression while denying others the same rights. Jasser appealed to Muhammed, the founder of Islam himself, to backup his opinions that the rights of others should be protected even if it went against his own views. Pretty words. Research into what Muhammed thought of this seemed to be dictated by whether or not he was in the minority or whether or not he was in control. Peace and tolerance was what he preached when he did not have the resources to force his will on others. This is why we have the Koran that says Peace and tolerance towards Jews and Christians and says kill us if we don't convert. It says both. I also have to point out its only in western democracies where people have the right to believe or express in public what they think. It's in the fundamentalist Islamic regimes where you can be persecuted, at best, or outright murdered if your understanding and interpretation of Islam is different from those in power. I guarantee Jasser would not be able to say the things he said in Iran.
Presidential Comic Books.
I just heard about a comic book showing Sarah Palin's life will be released February 2009. It is a biographical work and will chronicle her career. I also heard that there does exist a biographical comic book on Hillary Clinton.
Too Much Honesty?
It came out last weekend that Joe Biden made some comments that are now being twitsted by McCain's campaign. The man is now first string material. He has no "poker face". This is what he said:
Here is Biden in his own words:
Here is McCain's response
Of Course Sarah Palin has comments. I didn't like her's either.
I don't see anything wrong with Biden's statements only that it is not something Americans wanted to hear. He was merely pointing out that our enemies may try to push America because they wanna know if Obama will stand up to them. He was only asking people to stand with them when that happens. I don't think that it will matter who will be President. One or all of the scenarios he pointed out will most likely happen. They are already building up to that. It's coming. We don't need to worry or be fearful. I did not like McCain trying to use Biden's words to put fear into people by trying to make people think that our enemies will be more afraid to do something against us if he is President. I don't think that they will care and will push us anyway."Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Here is Biden in his own words:
Here is McCain's response
Of Course Sarah Palin has comments. I didn't like her's either.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Google Adsense
I looked at my blog this morning and I was shocked to see an advertisement for a site that denies the reality of the rapture. I'm not going to take it off my blog but I strongly disagree. Instead, I will read and respond to their claims. It's an advertisement of 2
free books (pictured in this post) about end-time prophecy. They are both over a 100 pages long and written by a single individual. I don't have the time to read his work now. But I will. For now i will make a general comment: Jesus told us not to trip over end-times. He told us to just obey and do the works He has called for us to do. There is no need to be anxious or frightened. He said that no man knew the day or hour of His coming so there is no need to try to figure it out. We just need to be ready when He does come. Make no mistake He is coming back! If you want to read the books yourself get them from this link.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Did Jesus Prophesy about Muhammed
It's hilarious to me when one religion tries substantiate itself using the Bible while at the same time repudiates it. Mormons do it. So do Muslims. They claim that the Bible has errors and mistakes in the manuscripts that have been passed down to us. Mormons teach that you need the Book of Mormon to get the whole message of God and the Bible is wrong only where it conflicts with the Book of Mormon. Islam says the same thing only they appeal to the Koran. I found a great video on GodTube that addresses this inequity in Islam. It points out that some Muslims quote Jesus from an Islamic text prophesying about a coming prophet and they say that prophet is Muhammad. Watch.
I found this video to be very true. And it points out somethings that can't be denied. Our society has the point of view, especially when it comes to religion, that says that one's truth
is just as good as another. That would be fine by me if they did not conflict with one another. We can both be wrong but we both can't be correct. The Bible says one thing. The Koran says something 180 degrees different from the Bible. You have to decide which are you going to believe or choose to believe none of them. We can't go on pretending that they are compatible.Here is another example: Muslim apologist sometimes try to use a New Testament scripture to teach that Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad. Jesus said in John 14:26-27 says
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
Through the "magic" of trying to equate the Greek word, Paraclete, translated "Counselor" here with Arabic words, some Muslims have tried to argue that Jesus was talking about Muhammad not the Holy Spirit, despite the context, history, and plain reading of the text. Also forgetting the fact that for centuries people have understood Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit. Apologist and Author, Dr. James White had a wonderful response to this argument. Watch This.
Colin Powell Endorses Barak Obama
I came home from church today and found out that Colin Powell is endorsing Barak Obama on Meet the Press. This is a a major development! Powell is a Republican. And he was part of the George W. Bush administration. I admire Powell because although he was mislead into supporting the war in Iraq because he believed that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he resigned when he found out there were not. Further, he has never tried to cover up the fact that he thought the war was neccessary and that he was wrong. He is well-respected by both political parties and the military. I'm glad that Colin Powell had the honesty to break party lines and endorse the candidate that he thought is best.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Now I Know this is a Hate Crime
On YouTube today I saw the following report of a man in Ohio, lynching an effigy of Barak Obama. This guy should be put under a jail somewhere. That's not free speech but an evil act of violence.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Why Does Islam Gets Special Treatment
I just heard from G4 that the video game "Little Big Planet" because there are two quotes from the Koran in the game. Little Big Planet is a platform game that allows you make your own characters, backgrounds, music and offers almost unprecidented customization for a console video game. The quotes apparently offended someone in Europe so now Sony is going to delay the game's launch and is removing the quotes in a song:
"kollo nafsin tha'iqatol mawt", literally: 'Every soul shall have the taste of death'.
"kollo man alaiha fan", literally: 'All that is on earth will perish'.
I admit that I have no idea why anyone is offended. You can read the articles here and here.
UPDATE
I just heard what the offense is: In Islam it is offensive to combine the words of the Koran with music! What?!!!! I admit I don't get it.
Al Smith 2008 Dinner
Every President since 1960 has spoken at the dinner ceremony commemorating the life of Al Smith, former governor of New York and former candidate for President of the United States. The idea is to take a humorous look at politics in America. This year both John McCain and Barak Obama jointly gave keynote addresses on October 16, 2008. To be honest, I laughed at both of their jokes. I have heard comments that Obama was stiff and McCain was comfortable and extremely funny. As I watched them at the dinner, I contrasted them with how they performed on Wednesday's debate. They switched places. During the debates, Obama was confident, strong, and debates very well. McCain looked uncomfortable and out of place. He lost composure at times. But during the dinner Obama did not look comfortable and McCain was very comfortable poking fun at himself, Obama, and our society. He was great. Obama was also funny but it did not come off as well. The question is do you think being entertaining is part of the job description for President? I'm trying to elect the best President not Jester. It seems to me that this underscores the difference between the 2 men even more. Here is a transcript.
Check out the videos below.
McCain
Obama
Mythological Barack Obama
I am amazed about same myths about Obama keep circulating. If people are going to hate him and trying to find reasons not to like him, then please find somethings that hold up better than the stuff being spewed out now. Here is a video that does a good job in summarizing those myths. This video is old but the arguments are still being used.
POISON
ANTIDOTE
Obama and Taxes
In case you have not been on Obama's campaign web site. You are missing out. I'm really impressed with it. His campaign war chest is being well spent. For people with questions about how his tax plan would affect them the website gives us a video and a tax calculator to see what you would pay if Obama ever gets to enact his tax proposals. I have put the tax calculator in the right-hand margin of my blog.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Desperate Attack on Obama
There is a guy in Pennsylvania so desperate to keep Obama from becoming President of the US that he has found a legal loop hole. He contends that there is no proof that Obama is a natural born United State citizen!!!! When I heard about this I was like "WHAT?!!!" Since then I was able to confirm that this is indeed happening....complete with reasoned arguments as to why we should question Obama's leadership. In my opinion the reasoning sounds desperate and down-right like straw grasping. It stinks of a "I-cannot-find-anything-else-so-will-go-with-this-because-there-are-people-enough-to-buy-it" mentality. Don't believe me...look at the video yourself:
There are several things that I think makes this a stupid idea. One of the main things is that if this really did hold any weight why isn't McCain using it? Why hasn't FOX News used it? I mean they report on the dumbest and inflammatory anti-Obama reports. This one is a doozy. If it is true that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen then he cannot be President. Case Closed! However all that is needed to prove either side right is to produce Obama's birth certificate. I do not think for a second that there is a reason for believing this hype. Do hear that? That's the sound of white people shaking in their boots.
Gerard Butler-After Dark: Greatest Hits From Obama
&
More Republican B.S
Check out this link for videos you should see!
Gerard Butler-After Dark: Greatest Hits From Obama <br> & <br> More Republican B.S
Gerard Butler-After Dark: Greatest Hits From Obama <br> & <br> More Republican B.S
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Newsmax taking Aim at Obama
I'm not sure if anyone who reads this have read Newsmax but it is always conservative and pro-Republican. I just read an article asserting that the reason why Obama is ahead is because people are to preoccupied dealing with the economy falling all around us to pay attention to Obama's negative aspects. With a title like ACORN could cause Obama's Fall I know you can see how they are trying to spin this. They enumerated the following "negatives":
1. ACORN caught registering fake voters.
2. Association with Jeremiah Wright
3. Association with Bill Ayers
4. Association with Antoin "Tony" Rezco
Let's take these one-at-a-time shall we:
1. Voter fraud and stealing elections is reprehensible but the article only implies and does not prove that Obama has had anything to do with it. Further, the article admits that Obama is so far ahead ACORN's alleged actions would not have made an impact. Finally, do the Republicans really want to talk about stealing elections? I mean with Jeb Bush, the brother of G.W. Bush being governor of the very state that had electoral "issues" in the 2000 election no one could not say that those shenanigans can't be placed at Bush's front door could they?
2. C'mon!!!! Does anyone truly think that Wright hates America and white people and by
extension so does Obama? If you do then maybe you need to watch a whole sermon by the man and look up his record and biography. Even if you disagree with the man, you can't ignore his service. He served America in the same war John McCain did.3. Obama was a child during Ayer's activist days. Since when does "activist" equals "ter
rorist".It seems silly to think Obama has anything to do with that. Ayers has moved on. So should everyone else. Ayer's picture is on the left.
4. I had to google this guy (picture on the right) because I hadn't heard of this scandal.
Apparently he's in jail because of financial corruption and government contracts in Iraq. So. Considering how Bush, Chaney, and other Republicans are mixed up in all of that too, do they really wanna throw stones because Obama knows a guy who was mixed up in it?I'm not saying Obama walks on water or turns water into wine or anything. But the Republicans are going to have to better than that to win this thing if winning means scandalizing Obama and his reputation. The arguments they are using do not work because they are silly. If they try to hit him on abortion or same-sex unions they risk alienating some voters, making the Democratic ticket stronger. Stick a fork in this one folks.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Marvel Comics Trailer: Ultimatum
We really have come a long way haven't we? Nowadays, because of the tools the Internet provides, Marvel generates movie-quality trailers for their comic book stories. On November 5, Marvel is releasing a new series. It's called Ultimatum. Here is the trailer as an example:
Got a PS3 or PSP?
I just got a report from G4TV that Sony is releasing updates to the firmware that run PSPs and Ps3s. Firmware is software that is embed in the hardware and tells the device how to function. Here is the Report
Sony's bringing in the latest firmware updates for the PSP tomorrow, according to their officially "unofficial" site, Three Speech. The PSP 5.00 firmware update will feature the Playstation Online store that allows direct downloads of games, trailers and more straight to your PSP
The PS3's latest 2.50 update allows in-game screenshots "supported on a game-by-game basis", improved Trophy interface and more. But, as the unofficial blog states, Flash 9 will be enabled with the system's internal net browser. Sweet! For a demo of the latest PSP firmware update, head to Playstation.Blog.
Decision Time!
Barak Obama has been accused of being a "socialist" because he wants to "spread the wealth around". We all need to realize that we can't have things both ways when it comes to everyone being taking care of or having capitalistic free market. We seem to want have government out of our lives - spending, buying, and running our lives the way we see fit. However when we get mistreated or can't get what we think we deserve we tend to want the government to step in and protect us. We can't always have both. Where do you draw the line? If a white person does not want a black person living in the house next to him, where does his right to live in the neighborhood he wants ends and the black person's rights begin? Without government intervention, black people had no rights to live where they wanted or to vote or to go to school where they wanted. If we went the direction of "leave-it-alone" economics completely people will get left on the wayside. The concept of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is great. What do you do about the people who don't have shoes? How do they pull themselfs up? The question is: what kind of country do you want to be?
Terrence Howard will need to find another job
At first I did not believe it, but I have seen it confirmed from 3 sources: Terrence Howard will not be playing James Rhodes/War Machine in Iron Man 2. After I picked myself off the floor, I heard that he was let go because financial negotiations fell through. We know what th
at means: Howard asked for more money than Marvel and Paramount wanted to pay him. Who can blame him? Iron Man made over $500 million dollars. He may have asked for a salary comparable
le to Robert Downey Jr's is what I think. I think he deserves it because James Rhodes is very popular in the comic books and one of my favorite characters whether he is standing on his own or supporting Iron man. Well that's the bad news. The good news is that he is being replaced by a great actor. Don Cheadle, whom I also like to watch. So I think that this may not be a bad thing for the movie after all but I will miss Howard because I was looking forward to seeing him in that role. I'm glad that Don will be filling the role too because had they picked a white actor I would have gone off. cry of "racism" would have been leveled for sure and brought to bear on the studios.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Yes, Virginia, there is still Racism in 2008
Ok, While I would like to chalk up this video to pure and simple ignorance, I don't think I can. I mean given the man's age, he's gotta know that he is offending black people everywhere and does not care! The fact that I have never heard of any kind of denunciation from either McCain or Palin says to me that maybe they endorse this sentiment as long as it means this man votes for them!
The look on their faces reminds me of the photo above of a bunch of "good" white people at a "picnic" cheesing at the camera around a tree with 2 black men hanging from it. They are brutally beaten with the nooses still around their neck. The white guy in the front kinda look like Hitler. Look at the following video and see the parallel.
More Finger Pointing
The financial meltdown has been blamed on the banks loaning money to people who could not pay for the loans - the mortgage fiasco that has lead to a multitude of foreclosures. Of course some have found a way to blame this on Obama. They are asserting that Community Organizers in general (ACORN in particular) strong-armed banks to make bad home loans. Here is a video making this connection. Even going as far as taking a statement Obama made in 2007 saying that the he wanted this group to help him make presidential policy. As if Obama would allow them to make his mind on how he would run the government.
Here are blogs of people trying to make case that community organizes caused the economic downturn. I find it laughable because everyone knows that the banks made those loans to make a quick buck! GREED is the cause of the housing bubble and now that Bubble has burst and it's going to take God to make sure we don't burst with it.
Here are blogs of people trying to make case that community organizes caused the economic downturn. I find it laughable because everyone knows that the banks made those loans to make a quick buck! GREED is the cause of the housing bubble and now that Bubble has burst and it's going to take God to make sure we don't burst with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)