Religion, Politics, Culture: Defined & Explained
§ Website Viewing
Places to visit.
- 1970's Jesus Music
- AM & FM Radio via Web
- Black Irish Band
- Cosumnes Republican Assembly
- Covenant Presbyterian Church
- Drudge Report
- Israel & Mid-East
- Marine Aquarist Roundtable (MARS)
- Paedo Baptism
- Reef Central MARS Forum
- Reformed Episcopal Church
- Right On Daily
- SciFi Channel News
- Walter Martin InfoNet
- Windows Phone Blog
- World Net Daily
Friday, March 07, 2014
Tom McClintock Draws Republican Opponent
Art Moore to go toe-to-toe with McClintock.
Big winners the infamous Park Brothers-George & Aaron
Loser Igor Birman
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Tom McClintock Snubbed By CRA
Another piece of news out of the CRA convention was that Congressman Tom McClintock was denied an endorsement for re-election.
McClintock has a reputation for being an arch-conservative but he seems to never find time in his busy schedule to help anyone else in his Party get elected. Just ask Dan Lungren, Peter Tateishi, Jack Sieglock, and any other Republicans that have run in and around his district in recent years. Even when his chief of staff decides to run for office, McClintock can offer only symbolic support.
Furthermore, I have been told that his representative in the Placer County Republican Party (Central Committee) is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage—truly a reflection of his publicly stated views and values…NOT.
McClintock may be many things but the word “leader” is not one that he deserves. The people that he tends to surround himself with are reportedly difficult and do not always share conservative values. He also doesn’t play nicely with conservatives that live in his district. (During most of his time in office, McClintock has lived outside his district in Elk Grove.)
As a result of his “army of one” attitude and hostility toward conservatives, Placer CRA denied him the endorsement. Reportedly after the filing period closes, they will endorse him then since he will be the only Republican on the ballot.
Tom can give a good speech but he has little to show for his years of service. Like many, he is living off a reputation that he ceased to deserve many years ago. He is on the same path as Dan Lungren except he is not in a competitive district so he will be in Congress as long as he likes. I wish he would either lead or get out of the way.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Ling Ling Chang Stumbles on Life Issue
Over the week-end, I spent time at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly.
The good news is that the convention was at Knott’s Berry Farm. The bad news is the park was closed due to weather. My family elected to “pay the mouse tax” as the Sith Lord calls a pilgrimage to Disney. My wife and two of the kids went to Downtown Disney to see The Lego Movie, eat lunch and shop. Meanwhile, daddy took a test for his on line accounting class and then went to the Saturday session of the convention.
Sunday saw my wife and kids get an early start and go to church while daddy attended the business meeting. Following this meeting was the first meeting of the newly elected Board. It is during the Board meeting that I saw something that was unusual and remarkable. I saw a candidate go from first to worst because of their position on abortion.
Under the CRA Bylaws, if there is no active club in a district—be it Assembly, Senate or Congressional—any endorsement in that race must be done by the State Board. One such race was the 55th Assembly District. In the race, three Republicans are actively campaigning: Ling Ling Chang, Phillip Chen and Steve Tye. Ling Ling had been working the group all week-end and even had a chance to speak during the Saturday Luncheon. Going into the endorsement proceedings she was the favorite. Phillip Chen was a distant second and the only question was could he get enough votes to prevent Ling Ling from receiving the require 2/3 vote needed for endorsement. Nobody had even heard of Steve Tye and I was surprised that he too was in the room.
Prior to the endorsement discussion I had met both Ling Ling and her husband. Both seemed like nice folks and I was planning to vote for her.
As the endorsement for AD 55 began, CRA President, John Briscoe started by introducing the man who was in charge of candidate surveys. Instead of going over all the questions, he said he would only go over the questions where the three candidates differed. Of these questions, the most glaring deficiency was that Ling Ling had left several life questions blank. This was a big yellow flag for the Board.
It was decided that candidates would go in alphabetical order (by last name) so Ling Ling was the first to address the group. She started by saying she was glad she was able to address the group and mentioned the prayer breakfast. After a few more comments, she then got to the blank questions on abortion. She stated that she was supportive of abortion for “the Reagan exceptions and the first few months”. Translation, she was for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother and during the first trimester. Then she was asked if she supported keeping the pro-life plank in the state party platform. Instead of saying yes, she said she would “support whatever the party wanted.”
First, I appreciate her honestly in answering the questions; but given her views why even try for our endorsement?
Phillip Chen then came up and said he was 100 percent prolife. He rolled-out his credentials that he was an evangelical Christian and loved God, country and family. Chen was then followed by Steve Tye who conducted himself well also.
After clarifying that No Endorsement would also be an allowable vote, the first of three ballots was conducted. On the first ballot, Ling Ling Chang got five votes, Tye got six, and Chen got about half. Many also voted not to endorse. As the person with the least number of votes, Ling Ling was then dropped from further consideration. Just like that, the perceived front runner was finished.
On the second ballot, Chen got 28, and the rest were divided between Tye and No Endorsement. On the third ballot, Chen got 29 votes because I changed from No Endorsement to Chen. This gave Phillip Chen the bare minimum needed for the CRA endorsement.
I was startled that my switch changed the proceedings from a deadlock to victory for Chen.
I did feel bad for Ling Ling. I felt she was just tone deaf to some issues that make conservatives passionate. (This opinion is due to the wording of a few other questions she answered in the candidate survey.) I am not saying that she had to agree with us or lie to get our endorsement, but she needed a more affirmative and confident answer. It could be that the issue hit too close to home and she did not want to speak about it publicly. If that’s the case, she needs our prayers.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Who Took the Gun to the Lego Movie?
I went to the local theater on Monday to take the boys to the Lego Movie. We were meeting another party there so I bought tickets for all of us. I left the teenager to meet his friends out front while little brother and I went inside to save some seats. (It was clear the early show was filling quickly since it was the President’s Day holiday.)
After securing seats, I called the teenager and told him what great seats we had taken. He then informed me that his friends were on the way with an extra person. He told me he had already tried to get an extra ticket but the show was now sold out. Much to my disappointment, this was a package deal and we all needed to sit together in the same showing; since that was no longer possible, I reluctantly left the theater and proceeded to get a refund for the show.
As my younger son and I stood in line to get the refund, I noticed the kids in front of me pick something up that was on the ground, play with it for a few seconds and then drop it again. I looked at the object on the ground in disbelief. I asked my son to pick it up. I then asked him if it was metal. He replied I think so. I then took it from his hand. It was a large bullet for a powerful pistol. (I later learned that it was likely a 38 Special round.) It was about the diameter of my pinkie finger and the casing was about an inch and ¾ long. The bullet was a concave shape.
After completing my refund, I took the bullet and gave it to a security guy at the theater and then we left.
I believe in the Second Amendment—more even than many Conservatives—but no responsible citizen would be dropping live ammo on the ground for small children to play with. I don’t think the owner of that bullet is responsible enough to be “packin’ heat” in public.
Monday, February 03, 2014
Super Bowl XLVIII
By far the biggest winner was Tim Tebow. The T-Mobile ads that he did were not only funny in their own right but a not so subtle “in your face” to the NFL. “No contract”, what a campaign—Tebow vindicated on a national stage.
The biggest loser was Tebow’s replacement at Denver, QB Peyton Manning. Denver fans will require vast quantities of federally prohibited pharmaceuticals to get past their team’s blow-out. Fans hoping for a victory celebration in the Rocky Mountains will be holding their breath until next season…Bummer.
Oh, in another stroke of irony, the Seattle QB’s first words in his interview were to thank God for the performance that he had—probably about the same speech that Tebow would have given if he had lead Denver to victory. I hope this defeat will haunt Denver’s management for many years.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Hollywood Nukes Quadriplegic Singer
Well known conservative and sometimes singer Joni EarecksonTada was stripped of her Oscar nomination for the movie song “Alone Yet Not Alone”. Tada’s nomination was revoked after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ruled that the person who wrote the lyrics of the song (Bruce Broughton) had violated their rules by personally emailing members and asking for their vote.
Wait until the academy finds out they just dissed the most famous quadriplegic in the world besides Stephen Hawking.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Bathroom Bill-Round 2 Underway
The referendum effort by CRI amazingly is surviving on life-support. The number of signatures turned in to the Secretary of State was not enough to qualify outright but good enough to go to the consolation round. Here is the meat of the story:
The Secretary of State’s Office said Wednesday that projections based on random sampling show the law’s opponents obtained 95.6 percent of the valid signatures they need to qualify the referendum for the November ballot.
Now signatures will be verified by the various county election offices and reported to the State. This process should take another month. The likely outcome is that the Secretary of State will then be able to pull the plug on the referendum effort; leaving CRI zero for four in their political efforts.
Translation, they were close but no cigar.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Bathroom Bill Challenge
Once again the challenge to the “bathroom bill” is in the news. The failed effort was handed a pyrrhic victory earlier this week as some petitions that were disallowed by some smaller counties where ordered by a judge to be included for verification. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/judge-orders-california-to-count-disputed-signatures-in-fight-over-transgen.html
Per the World Net Daily article, (http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/judge-bashes-california-for-ignoring-election-rules/) supporters consider this a victory. This fundraising propaganda piece—disguised as a news story—implies that this small number of signatures will be enough to qualify the referendum. Per this article, supporters claim they gathered 620,000 signatures and need 500,000 valid ones to qualify this effort. They actually need more than 500K but do the math using their numbers. This means that supporters are banking that they have an eighty percent verification rate for petitions largely gathered by volunteers at various churches. Such a high validity rate is impossible.
Per the WND article, signatures must be verified by January 8th. When the referendum effort is declared dead by the California Secretary of State what will supporters do then? Probably send out another fundraising letter declaring that the evil Liberals have thwarted the will of the people again. The blame should be affixed to CRI but somehow we know they will avoid fixing any blame on themselves.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
CRI Track Record of Failure Continues
As many of you will note in the news today, the transgender bathroom law is about to take effect in California. As burdensome, ridiculous, and unworkable as this law may be, many readers will ask about the supposed referendum effort to block this law.
Bad news, there never was a serious effort to block or repeal this law. Some financial backers of Prop 8 were interested in funding such an effort until it got hijacked by CRI (Capital Resource Institute). Once CRI interjected itself into the issue, the potential funders sat on the sidelines; only if CRI succeeded with the qualification of the referendum would they jump into the fray. CRI—the Karen England led conservative lobbying group—took this issue and turned it into another half-baked fund raising campaign for her organization.
This is at least the fourth such effort that CRI has made in recent years. They have a zero track record of success in anything they have tried to put on the ballot. In fact their efforts are so feeble that you can’t even find any trace of them on the California Secretary of State website for campaign finance reporting. The little money they have raised has gone to their staff payroll and CRI overhead and not to any signature gathering or other legitimate efforts to get anything on the ballot.
In a recent Sacramento Bee article, it was revealed that CRI got cross-wise with the IRS last summer and was in danger of losing their tax exempt status. I asked a politically connected friend about this article and his unsolicited response was, “I guess that explains why they were running the referendum campaign; to maintain cash flow.”
CRI is not only failing in their mission, they are actively hurting the few remaining conservatives left in California by emboldening our ideological opponents. By purporting to speak for all conservatives and failing miserably at every turn, CRI is creating the perception that nothing stands in the way of the looney Left agenda.
In recent years, CRI has lost their way. They spent much of their time fighting with conservatives and trying to take over the CRA and after that failed, they then expended effort trying to create an identical organization under their control (currently they have about two active chapters statewide).
Their fundraising often involves pretending to be part of someone else’s efforts to get something on the ballot or creating a parallel effort instead of supporting folks that are like minded on an issue. Prop 8 is the poster child for this behavior. CRI raised money from people that thought they were giving to Prop 8 when in fact they were giving to a CRI shadow organization that funneled money into CRI for the purpose of helping them make payroll. As is often the case with CRI, the money did not go to the purpose that donors were promised.
This referendum drill by CRI was a dismal failure. I knew it would be before they ever collected a signature. They never had a chance of success. The reality of politics in California is that such an effort typically requires about three million dollars just to get it on the ballot and an additional fifteen million or more to run a legitimate campaign. CRI ended up getting about half of the valid signatures required for qualification. Only paid gatherers could make up the needed shortfall. Why they would undertake such an effort when defeat was certain is mind boggling.
The reality is that we need CRI or a group like them at the Capitol but we also need an effective group. CRI has lost their way. The fact that Karen England is now residing in Nevada and commutes to Sacramento to work two days a week is not a harbinger that things are looking up for them.
Lest you think I am alone in this belief take a look at these articles:
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Merry Christmas 2013
For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9: 6 & 7
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Redefined Soon: Dog is Man’s Best Friend
A few years ago, Paul Shanklin did a parody of a man taking wedding vows with his dog. What was a whitty jab at judges changing the definition of marriage a few years ago has taken several large steps toward reality during the first half of this month.
On Monday, a Federal Judge struck down parts of the anti-polygamy laws in Utah.
A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state’s law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives.” The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.
Elsewhere, the decision was explained as striking down the polygamy law because the law limited freedom of association in violation of the First Amendment. Kody Brown and his four wives, who gained notoriety in the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” are challenging Utah’s bigamy statute, claiming it is unconstitutional because it violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association.
OK, so polygamy is now allowed under the First Amendment as a freedom. However, this decision says that a man can still only have one marriage license.
Those of us who support marriage as being between one man and one woman have been saying that the next domino to fall would be prohibitions on polygamy. Clearly, those floodgates are about to burst if they have not already. To decriminalize polygamy is a de facto judicial approval of the behavior.
Next to follow is why limit such loving arrangements to one man and several women. This clearly is discriminatory. What if a women wants multiple men simultaneously? While it might strike at the financial empires of Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint, clearly this is a reasonable corollary once polygamy is allowed. Soon any random assortment of consenting adults will be allowed to play house however they would like.
While this exponential decay of traditional marriage is underway, a second movement is also in the works. When combined to the above discussion, this get really weird because it opens up the possibility of legalizing bestiality.
I would like to introduce the other cutting edge movement that is gaining momentum on the fringe Left; personhood. No sadly, this has nothing to do with recognizing that all the unborn children aborted each year are baby humans. This also has nothing to do with the ethics of euthanasia. Instead the enlightened members of the Ivy League Left are pushing the recognition of the personhood of sentient animals.
Enter Yale University and the “Personhood Beyond the Human Conference” This event held December 6-8, 2013 was described by organizers as:
This historic event will focus on personhood for nonhuman animals, including great apes, cetaceans, and elephants, and will explore evolving notions of personhood by analyzing them through the frameworks of neuroscience, behavioral science, philosophy, ethics, and law. http://nonhumanrights.net/
The event featured the crazy bioethicist, Peter Singer. Singer is the guy who advocates that children that are born should not be declared “human” until they pass rigorous testing. Those children that fail to measure-up as human should be destroyed. “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person…” http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html In short, Singer is the poster child for the eugenics movement of the 21st Century.
Here is another quote from the abstract page of the non-human rights web site. “Legal personhood for animals would symbolize and institutionalize the intrinsic value of animals and, furthermore, offer significant procedural advantages.” - Saskia L. Stucki
Once whales, dolphins, elephants, and apes are made legally equivalent to humans—which is one of the chief goals of the conference—then it won’t be long before Fido is added to the list. Every movement needs a face people can love to sell the idea to the masses, what better poster being for this movement than the family dog. Yes, Lassie and Snoopy will be the gateway pets to proving the personhood of canines to the public.
Once the ideas of the Personhood conference gain traction and are combined with the definitions of marriage (and family) being developed by the courts then it is reasonable that an animal could be included into the definition of a family. To exclude such sentient beings from being equal partners in our families is “Speciesist”. If things continue as they are, the day is coming soon when a dog will truly be man’s best friend.
Here are a few passages from the “Good Book” that come to mind on this topic.
And God said , Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful , and multiply , and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1: 26-28
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.
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled : therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants .
Leviticus 18: 23-25.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Duck Dynasty Patriarch Stands Tall
I have never watched “Duck Dynasty” but the patriarch of the Robertson family, Phil recently got grief for the following comments.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” Robertson told GQ. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus – whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later.”
If you disagree your problem is with the Almighty and not Phil Robertson.
Preach it, Bro.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Happy Thanksgiving 2013
Hope everyone has a good holiday.
Here is a quick item to put a smile on your face.
A few days ago, I asked my son if he knew what “Black Friday” was?
He answered, “Isn’t that the day Jesus died?”
You can’t really say he is wrong. I think it puts the Christmas season in a better context and helps remind me that this time of the year is not about “retail therapy”. Please remember that Jesus is the reason for the season. Stryper has a song by that name and I think I’ll give it a listen.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Republicans Declare ObamaCare Bad
This just in from the National Republican Senatorial Committee
Does this sound sincere when Senate Republicans make claims like these?
“President Obama and Senate Democrats lied to the American people to force ObamaCare into law.”
“We won’t fooled by the Democrats’ political ploy.”
Wow, I thought maybe Lindsey Graham and John McCain resigned. After three years as the law of the land, the Republicans awaken?
Didn’t we shutdown fifteen percent of the federal government last month and then capitulate for no reason except we were winning?
Any Republican appeal for money should include the disclaimer:
“Warning any semblance of us displaying a spine is purely coincidental and not intended to offend any independents and democrats in the electorate.”
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Was There Any Doubt?
Was there any doubt the Republicans would unilaterally cave on the debt and budget? Then Speaker Boehner gets a standing ovation from his caucus??? The Speaker declares victory and everyone goes home!!!! WTF? No wonder the Democrats bumped-off my squishy Republican Congressman last election.
Victory gets turned into defeat again.
Some Republicans then ran to the media and said this really strengthens Boehner as Speaker. “I think his stock has risen tremendously. He has great security as our leader and our speaker.”