Philippians 4:8, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."

Friday, January 22, 2010

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, there was this article in the Weekly Standard:

Here is another great website: Abortion Changes You.

We are command to pray for our nation's leaders, and today's anniversary is a great reminder to do so.

Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

Thursday, January 21, 2010

This is the best analysis of President Obama's first year that I have seen:

http://cei.org/news-release/2010/01/20/report-card-obama-administration

In some cases there is neglect, but for the most part it is single-minded pagan philosophy. The egregious mismanagement of the Department of the Interior is what gets me most, because of my love for the outdoors. It hurts even more that a Colorado man is in charge.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

In short: a Nigerian Muslim homicide bomber has a disappointing detonation in his underwear, and the result is that Americans lose another chunk of freedom. I am at a loss to recall if ever in the history of warfare has so little done by so few (one!) won so much. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is the Al-Qaeda version of 1940's Royal Air Force. And why has our president handed Al-Qaeda another victory? Political correctness! We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of anyone of Muslim faith or descent from Middle Eastern terror-sponsoring states, and so we make the rules apply across the board to all Americans, even law abiding grannies from Des Moines.

Remember these words, from our president, on the 21st of September, 2001:


"Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."


And,

"-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.

-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

And finally,

"We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.

These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight, I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security"

Why the lengthy quote? Because this week, that same office, created by President Bush nearly ten years ago, in response to an abortive attempt on American lives, moved only to place greater restrictions on our freedom. There have been many indictments against President Obama during his first year in office. His choice of, and support of Janet Napolitano as chief of Homeland Security is an outrage that puts all of lives in greater danger, and worse, has already sacrificed freedom in lieu of relentless pursuit of the enemy at home and abroad. The victims of political correctness are, and will continue to be, freedom loving citizens. The moral clarity of September 21st, 2001 is hurtling into the dustbin of history, cast there by those whose morals and ethics are based on the vacuity of selfishness and momentary utility. May the God Who has preserved and made us a nation keep us for three more years.

Friday, November 06, 2009

I've been sorting through my thoughts on yesterday's premeditated murder of 13 at Ft. Hood (one of the posts where I served during my time in the Texas Army National Guard). The perpetrator of this heinous act was a devout Muslim who was motivated by his religious objections to our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in fact, he uttered words of religious fervor as he opened fire. It really could have been a lone wolf nut who was disenchanted with some form of rejection, someone going "postal." But it was not. It was instead an act of terror. Disconnected, perhaps, from any link or conspiracy with Al-Qaeda or other such groups, but an act in great concord with their doctrines and aims. I am sure that many a devout Muslim rejoiced at the breaking news yesterday. Ralph Peters, a journalist writing for the New York Post hits the nail on the head when he talks about our political correctness allowing for this kind of mass murder. I could not agree more completely, and it's what came to mind immediately as I digested the full story to this point. We can't be tolerant of those who hate our country, our principles, our freedoms, our Christian foundations, and our friendship with Israel. There is room for measured conversation; there is no room whatsoever for intent to do harm as a fundamental religious belief, and those who have those beliefs, and promote those beliefs, must go, even if we hurt their feelings.

Here's Peters' article: New York Post.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Modern romance, post-modern romance, and good old-fashioned romance.

Roman Holiday, Once, and Return to Me... with a little Before Sunrise thrown in to spice things up just right.

I do enjoy great romantic films. Recently, I reviewed Glen Hansard's Once, which I think is a post-modern Roman Holiday. You have to know the Cary Grant/Audrey Hepburn classic to see the familiar elements between the two. In both films, two people fall in love, but the love is forbidden; it will never happen. But for a brief time, the realities of their lives are suspended, and romantic fireworks ensue. Yet the clock ticks, midnight strikes, and the two couples go their separate ways.

In Roman Holiday, a princess and a news reporter are paired; in Once, it is two composer/musicians, both who have fallen out of relationships. In the former film the spark is Rome, in the latter, great music.

Post-modernism is all about subjectivity, and does not take into account objective, God-given truth. Wikipedia says, "Postmodernism refers to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, interconnectedness or interreferentiality, in a way that is often indistinguishable from a parody of itself." I think this is the result of having no standards of truth or beauty. So, even the definitions are confused.

A real romance, a godly romance, has to exist on the basis of biblical principles, not hormones, not supercharged tragic ideals, and not places and things that are isolated from eternal truth. It has to make sense beyond the subjective. Ayn Rand understood this in the core of her Romantic Manifesto. Again from Wikipedia, "At the base of her argument, Rand asserts that one cannot create art without infusing a given work with one's own value judgments and personal philosophy. Even if the artist attempts to withhold moral overtones, the work becomes tinged with a deterministic or naturalistic message. The next logical step of Rand's argument is that the audience of any particular work cannot help but come away with some sense of a philosophical message, colored by his or her own personal values, ingrained into their psyche by whatever degree of emotional impact the work holds for them."

Both Once and Holiday are infused with a longing to break the conventions of society for the sake of love. Love - as a feeling, a chemistry between two people - is the great priority of these films, and they leave the audience with the infused longing that the moral conventions of our western society might be broken so that these great relationships might bear their fruit... but what fruit? A union? A continuity of the feeling of being in love?

Richard Linklater's 1995 film Before Sunrise takes viewers over that horizon - all in 24 hours. When two travelers agree to spend 24 hours in Vienna, the sparks fly, and then... consummation... and ?... filmgoers had to wait until 2004 to get the answer. And the answer was... an agreement to go forward. But in the two film set there are no social barriers to overcome except space and time. Yet the same idea of the previous two movies remains: romance is the spark of something shared by two lovers, a Rome, a Vienna, a song.

Which brings us to a really fine romantic film, based on more objective truth. Real romance has to have the leading of the hand of God, and a purpose in his economy. Return to Me has an unmistakenly God-thing coincidence, and although there's no overt purpose in God's economy to the romance, if there is ever a sequel, it will go in that direction. The romance between the protagonists is the result of answered prayer, it is revealed, and from the prayers no less than those of an Irish Archie Bunker. Could grace ever have a better advertisement than that.

The purpose of romance isn't feeling, or sex, or at least it had better not be. It can be simple as the direction of raising godly children, or serving the Lord together in some field of Christian work. It is the direction that gives romance its backbone and the physical relationship of marriage its continuity and exclusiveness.

See the films; think about them in the light of objective truth, and see if you can sift out a worldview or two from them. It's the Lord's work to do so.








Saturday, April 11, 2009

Here is a great story on persecution from the Hanoi Hilton: National Review Online