“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS

Check this Out. Mrs. Scelestine Langston is a mother in the Church of God in Christ. Her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr is a bishop in the church of God in Christ.

Contact: Dr. Louis C. Langston
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cell Phone: (510) 582-3461
Email: "Sandra Langston"

“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS
"Volunteer Caller, 100 years of age Matriarch"




Photo L to R.- Ms. Diskowski, Bishop James Langston, Mrs. Sandra Langston, Armand Burns, Dr. Louis Langston, Mrs. LaJuanah Lunceford, Mrs. Scelestine on Telephone
==============<><><>==============
Berkeley, California, October 28, 2008 – Obama Headquarters Office welcomed the unexpected 100 year old, Mrs. Scelestine Langston. She was accompanied by her forth generation son, a first time voter, Armand Burns; her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr.; her seventh son and his wife, Dr. Louis C. and Sandra M. Langston; and her second daughter, LaJuanah R. Langston-Lunceford. The staff and volunteers in the crowded office were aggressive in calling and working the telephone banks to Get-Out-The-Vote.

Ms. Dawn Diskowski, Phone Bank Captain, and Bishop Langston, assisted Mrs. Scelestine Langston in making her first call to Jonathan Christman of Norwalk, Ohio. Christman was very surprised to receive an out-of-state, get-out-the-vote call from the 100 year old great-great grandmother but happily promised her he would go out and vote for Obama.

Mrs. Langston’s fourth generation son, Armand Burns, said he was encouraged to register to vote after listening to his great-grandmother. She told him and the others listening that her life has come full circle and is now complete. Her faith in God is unyielding; her family is intact; and with the real possibility of Obama’s becoming the nations forty-fourth president, her belief in change makes more sense now than it ever has. To use Obama's words, she is now embued with hope.

The 100-year old matriarch, Mrs. Langston, the oldest of three children, was born to Louis and Orelia Jenkins on March 8, 1908 in Jeanerette, Louisiana. She gave birth to 11 children.

Two Glimpses Into the Future

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 gave us 2 glimpses into the future. First, we found out who the next President is: Barack H. Obama Jr! Second, we saw the next iteration of remote conferencing technology: Holographic News Correspondents! I was blown away to see Anderson Cooper of CNN interviewing Will.I.AM. Anderson was in New York. Will.I.Am. was in Chicago. It was a Full, free-standing hologram, interacting in real-time! They even showed the hologram from the rear. Will.I.Am even did a little dance at the beginning and ending of the interview. It was like the hologram of Princess Leia projected by R2D2 in Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope (1977,1997), only it wasn't blue. I thought it was a trick. But it seems that it was real. Also it turns out that they had used the technology earlier that day, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Jessica Yellin. G4TV also reports that the very first time the technology has been used was in Australia:

This however, is not the first time this technology has been utilized. In May, Australian company Telstra "beamed" a hologram of its Chief Technology Officer from Melbourne to 460 miles away in Adelaide.

I scoured the Internet for about how the technology works. Gizmodo had the answer:

CNN's holographic election coverage is fancy pantsy, but how did they manage to send 3D 360 degree footage of virtual correspondent Jessica Yellin from Chicago all the way to the station's election center in NY? As Arthur C. Clarke says, Magic. A magic made possible from technology Vizrt and SportVu with the help of forty-four HD cameras and twenty computers. Here are the details.

On the subject's side:
• 35 HD cameras pointed at the subject in a ring
• Different cameras shoot at different angles (like the matrix), to transmit the entire body image
• The cameras are hooked up to the cameras in home base in NY, synchronizing the angles so perspective is right
• The system is set up in trailers outside Obama and McCain HQ
• Not only is it mechanical tracking via camera communication, there's infrared as well
• Correspondents see a 37-inch plasma where the return feed of the combined images are fed back to them. Useful for a misplaced hair or an unseemly boogar
• Twenty "computers" are crunching this data in order to make it usable

On the HQ side:
• Only used on two out of 40-something total camera feeds that CNN has
• Wolf Blitzer really loves it (or loves Jessica Yellin):

It's still Jessica Yellin and you look like Jessica Yellin and we know you are Jessica Yellin. I think a lot of people are nervous out there. All right, Jessica. You were a terrific hologram.

• The delay is either minimal, or we've gotten used to satellite delay that we don't even notice now
• An array of computers takes the crunched info feed from the subject's side in order to mesh it with the video from Wolf's side.
• Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario

Here is a video of the system in action!!!

CNN debuts hologram @ Yahoo! Video

I want one of these!!!!

Obama Wins! November 4, 2008

I am almost speechless. I don't even know what to say. Barack Obama has actually succeeded in becoming President of the United States Of America. I heard McCain's concession speech. I was really good, classy, kind, amazingly honorable. I regained respect for John McCain in that speech. As for Obama's victory speech, it was perfect. Obama did not seem to let the success go to his head but allowed him to ask Americans to think and not just be all emotional. He told it like it is: This is not going to be easy, there are tough times and choices ahead. He said that this is just the beginning and not the end that he and his supporters have been fighting for. I was really, really impressed.

Here is Barack Obama's Victory Speech



Here is John McCain's Concession Speech

Updated: To Sean Hannity: Don't Drink the "Haterade"

If you haven't watched Sean Hannity on Fox News, you have missed some of the most biased journalism I have ever witnessed. He seems to hate Barack Obama and seems personally insulted. I think that it is good that people should scrutinize Obama, but it should be truth. Hannity seems to be trying to find anything at all to disqualify Obama from being President, and he can't do any better than the lies, falsehoods, and fact-manipulation that we have witnessed throughout the campaign from Fox News. This list was broadcasted last week and by now you probably realize that most Americans ignored Hannity, but I think its worth looking at why his list doesn't make sense. If this is his reasons why he would not vote for Barack Obama, this list represents why I did.



I made some notes on his points, I have to ask "Is that all you got?" His points are in bold my comments are in bold red

10. Judgement - Questionable Associations
a. Jeremiah Wright
b. Father Flagger - connected to Farrakan
c. William Ayers
d. Frank Marshall - Poet, Communist
e. Tony Resco - felon
f. Rashid Kalide -Palenstenian who says that it is ok to resist Israel
g. Percy Sutton - Dr. Kahlid Almon Sur (Black Panther Party mentor; Black
Nationalist; hates Israel;
Asserts Obama's associations would not allow him to be an FBI Agent

Well I guess its good then that Obama is not trying to be an FBI agent huh? I agree that who you choose to hang around with does speak to who you are, but each of these people have either been misrepresented or the attempt to connect them to Obama is tenuous at best. C'mon, you know people who are not exactly law-abiding too. Does that make you a bad person? No!

9. Media Darling - appoints him a celebrity, supported by hollywood, no critical
view or analysis on him or positions.
a. His associations
b. Redistribution of wealth


Did you hear one of the criticisms that Hannity uses in the clip: 9. Media Darling. Hanniyt's problem with Obama is that the media has made him a media darling. So was John F. Kennedy. So was Ronald Reagan. So what? Hannity claimed that the media has not scrutinized Obama enough. Hannity is part of the media. He might as well say he hasn't done his job. His argument is that we should not vote for Obama because liberal Hollywood and the media like him. Can't he do better than that? He also insinuates that Obama has been linked with radical and terrorist men and the media has done nothing to call him on it. What does he want the media to do? Round up a posse and lynch Obama? What I saw was that Obama knows a lot of people, some of whom he disagree with. none of them are less American than you or me. With each of the people he brings up you can't say any of them are un-American or criminals. If you do, then so are Bush, Cheney, and many others. Can't he do better than that? I think the mainstream media did not pursue these stories because they are non-issues. Everyone has associations with some people that other's don't like. Hannity seems to think that Obama should shun people that Hannity do not like or disagrees with. What is this? High school?

8. Joe Biden - was a bad VP pick. I don't see Biden putting his foot in his mouth all
the time, Just Hannity twisting his words

I've posted on this point before, but I want to re-iterate that I think Biden is correct that some of enemies may decide to see how far they can push us because they want to test Obama. So. I don't think they would not test McCain. Our enemies think we are weak, decadent, immoral, and about to collapse at any time. They think god is on their side. Why wouldn't they hit us regardless of who is President?

7. Consistency -flip flops too much
a. October 2007 - no flag Lapel
b. Accepty public financing
c. Immediately withdraw troops
d. FISA Bill
e. Jerusalem must be undivided, next day changed
f. Withdraw from NAFTA

When is changing your mind or opinion flip flopping? According to Sean Hannity, there is no difference. Makes no sense. It's like he has already decided not to vote for Obama and now is trying to rationalize that choice.

6. Out of the Mainstream - Elite, clinging to education
a. Looks down on average Americans
b. Against Abortion
c. Sex education to kindergarteners
d. Too much gun control
e. Provide amnesty to illegal immigrants

Here, Hannity's jealousy really comes through. His tone seems to dismiss Obama as if to say, "How dare he be black and intelligent and educated, challenging all of my pre-conceived thoughts and prejudices about what Black men are like!"

5. Too many democrats - no check and balance on liberal agendas
a. Universal health care
b. New Supreme Court
c. Compromised National Security

Hannity paints a nightmare scenario where Democrats will have the power to pass any liberal laws and ideas they want without restraint if they have the Presidency and control of Congress. I think that he may be unable to sleep tonight. We will still have the Supreme Court to act as a check and balance. Ordinary citizens made their influence felt in this election using the Internet, I doubt that this influence will not play a role in an Obama administration.

4. Divisive Politics
a. Farakahan calls him a "messiah"
b. John Louis compared McCain to George Wallace

Asserts racially tinged rhetoric but with no examples

3. Taxes and Spending
a. People who don't pay taxes will get a check for the government.
b. Scaring other countries from doing business for us

With the economic brain trust advising him, I think Obama has more an idea of what to do about the economy more than Hannity.

2. Foreign Policy
a. Inexperienced
b. Will draw our enemies to attack us
c. Sitting down with enemy nations without pre-conditions.

1. Lack of Experience
a. Used the rhetoric from the Democratic Primaries campaign where Clinton
and Biden said Obama was not ready.



Sean Hannity remarked that Obama has done nothing major or important to be where he is. My question is what has Sean Hannity done to deserve his won television show? I have never heard of him before Fox News. What makes his opionions so important that he should be on the air waves? Not even enough. At least as a community organizer, Obama did touch people's lives. And as a Senator, you touch lives just by going to work, not to mention the legislation and other duties Obama has performed. What has Hannity done that touched any lives? Sean Hannity, stop hating. You seem very jealous that you have not had the same level of success in life as Barack Obama. In addition, John Kennedy, Carter, Truman, and several other Presidents had very little Foriegn Policy experience but made a great Presidents. Also I am amazed at how nasty the compaigns was and now that it's over, I wonder how can they just put aside all the spilled blood and work together. After the things Biden and Hillary Clinton said, Obama has seemed to let all that go and work with them. This is something else that I think will make him a great President.

Theololgy and Biology

Here is a video from GodTube discussing on how God has designed our bodies. It may explain the reasons behind the soaring divorce rates and infertility in countries where the pill and other chemical contraceptives are prevalent.

Facts about the Koran

Here is a short video explaining the "Doctrine of Abrogation". In it, Muslim reconcile contradictory passages in the Koran by annulling the older passage. We have no such issue when it comes to the Bible because there is no example of passages blatantly contradicting one another no matter how you look at the context and culture of the time in which they were written.

Obama and History

The following was sent to me today:

Crispus Attucks fell so that Rosa Parks could sit, Rosa Parks sat so that Dr. Martin Luther King could march, Dr. Martin Luther King marched so that Barack Obama could run, and Barack Obama is running so that our children and grandchildren can fly."

I have ambivalent feelings about this. I am ecstatic that a Black family has gotten this close to the White House without being maids, butlers, day-laborers, or slaves. As long as we keep realistic expectations on who Obama is and what he can do, we will be okay. Although there are some misguided attempts to paint him in messianic terms, I have never heard Obama make any such claims. We must be careful to not put him on a pedestal that he, nor anyone else but Jesus Christ, can stand on.

Update: Terrence Howard and Iron Man 2

I just read on ReelComics.com and /Film more information about why Terrence Howard was not recast (read fired) as James Rhodes in Iron man 2. Marvel is saying that because Terrence was the first to sign on, he ended up being paid more than anyone else, but there is no explanation as to how this could happen. It was also reported that the director and producers were not satisfied with Howard's work on the first Iron Man. That does not make sense because I heard them say that all the actors were great. There was talk about scaling back the Rhodes role in the sequel and offering Howard 50%-80% less money than what he signed up for. No wonder he said "No." Even before the first movie came out they promised that if there was going to be sequel James Rhodes as War Machine would play a major role. It all sounds fishy to me. Apparently with Don Cheadle signed on, War Machine's back in a major way. Mr. Cheadle needs to watch his back because apparently Marvel Film execs did not get the memo that the civil rights legislation passed. It's not right to break contracts and just treat people that way. I think they could have worked harder to work something out with Terrence Howard. I'm not sure who to believe, but we are not getting the whole truth.

Sarah Palin Tricked

Sarah Palin was recently tricked into thinking that she was on a phone call with the President of France, named Nicolas Sarkozy. I've attached a YouTube video to this post that records that calls. The prank was on the radio by 2 Canadian "shock jocks". Palin seemed incredibly clueless. Even when the call got outlandished. I think Palin should have known something was up when "President Sakozy" referred to Hustler magazine's porno, called "Who's Nailin Paylin", as a biographical film about her that he liked. At best it is a filthy parody and at worst real porno. I would have thought that she would have known about it and would have been outraged. She reminded me of women in film or rap videos who don't realize that they are being exploited.



I really thought that is was a hoax and that nothing like that could every really happen, but now that other sources have confirmed this I'm really worried that McCain gave Sarah Palin too much credit as a running mate. I, under any circumstances, do not want to see someone that clueless in power.

Importance of Voting

I just received e-mail that points to a video created by Color of Change.org and it is well-done. It gives a historical background summary of election frauds in 2000 and 2004. Please share it and view it.

A Letter That Should Be Read

October 31, 2008 I recieved a forwarded e-mail from a White man who was a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation longer than Obama. What he has to say about Rev. Wright as a Pastor is very telling about who he is and how much of a distortion that the media has done in an effort to Obama. You can find the original letter at: Trinity United Church of Christ Celebrates Diversity: One man shares his experience with Rev. Wright.

Trinity United Church of Christ celebrates diversity. One man shares his experiences with Rev. Wright

Rev. Wright in a different light
By William A. Von Hoene Jr. **click to read the entire article**
March 26, 2008

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

I hope that as a nation, we take advantage of the opportunity the recent focus on Rev. Wright presents—to advance our dialogue on race in a meaningful and unprecedented way. To do so, however, we need to appreciate that passion born of difficulty does not always manifest itself in the kind of words with which we are most comfortable. We also need to recognize that the basic goodness of people like Jeremiah Wright is not always packaged conventionally.

Obama on the Bible Redux

With Election Day immediately upon us, there has been several videos posted on GodTube and YouTube accusing Obama of mocking the Bible. I blogged on this months ago, but since its rearing it's ugly head, I've got to comment on it. The most divisive part of the speech is the part that is being clipped out and distributed around the internet. Here it is:



I must say first I disagree with Obama's assertions. The Bible is just as relevant today as it ever was and will always be relevant. This is the truth. As a Christian, I believe this and know that its more true and more relevant than any religious text that has or ever will be written. That being said many of us Christians are under the delusion that America is a "christian" nation that follows the Bible and loves God. It could be argued that it never was. This is not an indictment or criticism against the country I love, just an observation, that I will develop into a more extensive article, and not the point of this post. The only way for Obama to be elected is to appeal to all Americans not just Christians. I believe him when he says (if you watch the whole speech) that he believes America is now more than a just a Christian nation. Buddism. Mormonism. Jehovah Witness. The Occult. And so many other religions are in American society and jockeying for postion in the American heart and mind. In recognizing this, Obama was saying that the state could not use the Bible, or Koran, or any other religion to set policy - separation of church and state. This was the soul of his message in that speech. I think it's unfortunate what he said about the Bible because I disagree. I reject the notion that all religions can co-exist and play nice. Uneasy tolerance is the best we can hope for. The basis of who we are, as Christians, is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and rose again in power and reality. Every other religion denies this fact. We can all be wrong...but we can't all be right.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to be Christian today do not hold a high view of scripture and erroneous views the Bible as literature, but not God-given or inspired by him. That's unfortunate. You may even be able to argue that these people are not truly Christians. Even if you apply this logic to Obama, you have to apply the same logic to McCain. He, nor his staff, have behaved any better in this campaign than Obama and his staff have. Bearing false witness against some one is a sin and God does not like it. The McCain campaign has repeated labeled Obama as a socialist. He is not. If you think Obama is a socialist, then you don't know what a socialist is. That is just as anti-Christ as Abortions, same-sex unions, and not honoring scripture enough to obey it. For this reason, I don't think that this excludes me from voting for Obama. In my opinion, McCain is just as off theologically as Obama. And Obama is the lesser of the two evils.

If you have not seen the whole speech, please check out my previous post: Obama's View on Bible.

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.

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. This will 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.

Sessler's Soapbox: Game Journalism Exclusives, "New Yorker" @$$holes

Posted by Patrick Roche-Sowa - Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:40 PM

In 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."

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.

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.

Gerard Butler-After Dark: The Black Sarah Palin

Gerard Butler-After Dark: The Black Sarah Palin

Here is the video embed below

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.

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!

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:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
• 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.

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:

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

Sci-Fi / Journalist: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans - trailer

Sci-Fi / Journalist: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans - trailer

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.

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).

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.

Get your own - Open publication

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:

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.

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;

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.”

It might be a rumor but considering Terrence Howard pretty much confirmed it... no need in beating around the bush.

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:

"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."

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.

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.

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.