Westboro Baptist Church (KS) Members To Picket Amish Funerals In Pennsylvania

Just when you think that the news cannot get more appalling, I hear on Fox News that the members of this radical Christian jihadist church in Topeka, plans to picket the funerals of the little girls that were slain at the hands of a sick and twisted individual. (Read the official church announcement here.)

Normally this is not a religious blog, even though some of the posts and discussions occasionally cross over that line, when the issue warrants it. But for those of you that come here to read political commentary, forgive me for a moment while I address this.

This church claims they have a divine right to demonstrate to promote open hatred against homosexuals and they claim they do it, with God's approval. They also cite a scripture from Hebrews 10:30, 31, which states the following (emphasis is mine):

30. For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people. 31. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Now let's look at this passage shall we? It says that GOD will judge, GOD will repay, not the Westboro Baptist Church. Does it not?

Not only that, let's examine it from a different angle. I am sure that the members of this church would say explicitly that THEY are God's people. If that be the case, according to the scripture, GOD will be judging them. It says that God will judge his people, does it not?

Let's look at another scripture, found in Titus 1:16 (emphasis is mine).

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

How are they abominable? They are attempting to get at the Governor of Pennsylvania by using the pain and grief of innocent people, adding sorrow upon sorrow to that which is already there. If they want to air their grievances against him, they should take it to the statehouse, like every other citizen.

How are they disobedient? Let's look at 1 John 4: 7, 8 and see what it says:

7. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

But from their own admission they say God hates gays and that in turn, gives them the right to hate them. But from Luke 10:27, we see from Christ's own words, this is not true:

27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Not thy heterosexual neighbor, not thy neighbor that agrees with you, but thy neighbor. "Thy neighbor" does not make stipulations. Note that it does not say that I should approve of everything my neighbor says and does. But it does say that I should love him/her, and not hate.

How are they reprobate? Let's look at 1 Timothy 4: 1, 2 for the answer:

1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

If we sear our skin with a hot iron, after the pain of the burn goes away, the nerve endings are numb. They are burnt and damaged and they may never completely heal. It is apparent from the behavior of this twisted group of individuals that they have either no conscience, or it has been seared with a hot iron and the ability to sense what is right and what is wrong, has been numbed greatly. This makes them reprobate.

Now, you may ask why the Bible speaks of God hating this or that and to this question I have an answer for you.

In Psalms 139: 21, 22 we see that God, speaking through David, speaks of a specific kind of hatred:

21. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22. I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

A perfect hatred is much different than a hatred intitiated by man. God hates evil and defines it according to His specific criteria. The evil that man interprets as evil is not always the same kind of evil, as what God may determine it to be. My point is, if man is an imperfect being, how can he hate with a perfect hatred? Answer: He can't. So this is why God says that He will recompense evil-doers, and does not require us as individuals to do it for him.

So to sum this whole thing up, I would say this. From the time that the Apostles were dying off and going off the scene, there have been people that have sought to pervert the Gospel of Christ for their own perverted agendas. Today is not different and these people are but a handful of those grievous wolves that crept into the early church and still exist today. And I firmly believe that God hates them, with a perfect hatred.

News Briefs (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)

Trying to decide what to post on can be tough sometimes, especially when there is a lot going on. So, here are few things that are happening in our world and some thoughts to go with them.

Calls For Hastert's Resignation Increasing

If you were to have told me that a Washington newspaper was calling for the resignation of Speaker Hastert, over the Foley affair, I'd have guessed WaPo without batting an eye. But this the WaTi calling for it. And you know what? Maybe it's about time. He's been worthless, you know. Maybe it's time for new blood to assume control and maybe the new Speaker will actually do his job. (De plane, de plane. Looooook boss, it's de plane!!!)

Meanwhile, ABC News is reporting that Foley's depravity may be more pronounced, than first believed.

I have no pity on this guy. The fact that he is in an alcohol rehab, won't get an ounce of sympathy from me. Not only did he dishonor himself and the people that sent him to Washington, he betrayed his family and has subjected them to what will be a long term, of shame and embarassment. But more than that, who knows how much damage he did to those kids?

Some are questioning the double standard that seems to be in play, where Democrats are concerned.

And you know what? It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

Why is Gerry Studds still in office? At this late point in the game, you cannot blame him. You have to ask the people of his district, they are the ones that have kept voting this guy in. It certainly doesn't say much for them, does it?

The other legitimate question to ask is, what did the Dems know and when did they know it? We all know why the GOP would have tried to cover it up. But why would the Dems?

If it is found that the Dems sat on this, to use it as their October surprise, this thing will backfire on them lightning fast. So, if there is any chance this has happened, they would do well to let this one drop and let the GOP lick their wounds. (But you know they won't. Politics is a science of opportunity.)

Sen. James Inhofe took on an interviewer on whether or not global warming is caused by man, or not. (click on the link, and then click on the link dated Oct. 3)

Sen. Inhofe turned the tables on CNN anchor Miles O’Brien and the interviewee, became the interviewer. He cleaned his clock, in my opinion. You have to see this one, for yourself.

The AP is reporting that Iran has asked France to oversee their enrichment of uranium.

I would approach this with a cautious optimism, with the operative word being "cautious". These things have a way of falling through. Iran could be trying another stall tactic and this whole ply could be a trick. One thing is for sure, the French had better not let this thing play out in the media, until there is an agreement. It will decrease the chances of this becoming a reality, if the media conducts the negotiations.

French smokers are outraged at the possibility that new laws banning smoking in public may be implemented.

To the French I say:

Welcome to the world of socialism, where the government tells private business what it can and cannot do. We actually beat you to this one. I am a smoker, but have always respected non-smokers rights. I do not mind going outside. And as long as they don't take that right away, I can live with it.

I say, get used to it and remember, it will all get better when you decide to conform to the will of Big Brother. He knows what's best for you.

The Decline And Fall Of The Enlightenment Period: Part ?

Today, many in Europe are decrying Americans for a great ambivalence, in what they perceive is the wholesale surrendering of our rights. The Patriot Act, listening programs, and the right to hold enemy combatants without a trial are all at the forefront of this debate. They claim that Americans are turning their collective backs on the very freedoms that made this nation such a model to emulate and admire, by not challenging these policies. But in Europe, there is a different kind of wholesale surrender going on.

Victor Davis Hanson has written a compelling essay that examines this very phenomenon and it can be found at NRO. It's called Traitors To The Enlightenment and in it, he both chronicles some of the events, as well as, analyzes the meanings (of those same events) of the classical Greek and 18th century enlightenment periods.

Now let me be the first to say, I am not a prophet by any stretch of the imagination. But I can see serious problems looming on the horizon for the entire world, if Europe loses its grip on freedom of speech (and the freedom of expression). I can see patterns developing (and some are already well-developed). You may not be able to assign a quantitiative value to what I see, there are some things you cannot place a number on and this is one of them.

We all know that Europe has had its troubles with these things in the past. And now, under a different banner comes some of the same anxieties and the some of the same fears that brought about those moments of turmoil; whereby, going along with the flow meant giving up some of the very core principles and ideals that were developed, back when freedom of thought was but a hope and a dream. However, the question always has been and still remains, what will we do about it this time?

A while back I made a comment on a blog. The subject was how many young people today make the argument that they would recognize a Hitler if they were to see one (if one were to rise up again). I said something along the line of this: It's easy to recognize one if a European dictator rose up, began rounding up Jews to be exterminated, and began suppressing people's rights in a wholesale fashion. That would be easy. But what if that Hitler came in another form? What if he would mutate like a virus and come in another form that would not be so easy to notice?

Well you know what? He has. But Hitler is not a man anymore. The spirit that possessed Hitler has diffused into a scattered existence and has taken on a new look, one that is not so easily recognized.

The European and American freedoms (that were carved out as a result of the enlightenment period) are now under attack by those that follow radical Islam. Freedom of speech is under attack, Jews are under attack, and the threat of a true world war is forever growing on the horizon. And yet, very few people even realize it. It starts slowly and gradually rocks us to sleep, because many of us just do not want to believe that it exists. Yet, it is the same manifestation of evil, the same force is behind it, and it is as real today, as it was then.

The bottom line in all of this is, while Europeans are worrying about Americans losing their civil liberties, some of them are failing to see they are missing a subtle yet sure return, to the days when superstition reigned supreme. They are witnessing a fanatical religious ideology influencing the lifestyle of an entire civilization by openly advocating censorship and creating a climate of fear and intimidation, to do it.

America and Europe must be free to exercise any religion we choose, we must be free to enjoy any decent activity we choose, and we must not be bound to any one specific belief system, because someone gets offended. Our rights should not be curbed to appease those that disagree with our culture and our value systems. To do so would mean that we (as enlightened societies) have surrendered that which so many have fought and died for over the centuries, and would mean the certain death of western ideals and principles.

(I know I have an argument, when my friend Super Frenchie and I are pretty much on the same sheet of music. Read his post on one specific example of this manifestation here. Then, be sure to read VDH's essay in its entirety. You won't be sorry.)

Addendum:

This op-ed piece by Anne Applebaum from WaPo is certainly relevent to this post. Check it out.

Gen. Colin Powell: The Antithesis Of Narcissism

From WaPo comes this lengthy and detailed article about the circumstances surrounding Colin Powell's departure from the Bush Administration. The narrative comes from the new book, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell by Karen DeYoung.

Allow me to preface what I am about to say here with, I have always had a tremendous amount of respect for Gen. Powell. In fact, I could spend an entire post detailing my reasoning, but I can sum it all up in much shorter fashion:

I have said many times before, the best people for the job of President, do not want the job. This certainly is the case here.

Gen. Powell is an intellectual, a diplomat, a soldier, and most of all, a leader. But for numerous reasons (one of which is his wife's health), he has no desire whatsoever, to be President. I would say the prime reason for this is, the intense scrutiny and pressure that comes with the territory is so overwhelming and so frustrating that it is just not healthy for anyone. By reading this WaPo article you can get a mere taste of the world that people at this level, must endure day to day, week to week. The arm twisting, the manipulations (and so forth) are so intense and so relentless, a person could easily feel pulled in several directions, simultaneously.

With his military retirement pay, generous book royalties and speaking fees, he makes a decent living. He doesn't need the money. He has been at the top of the mountain in the military, so he doesn't desire the power. He understands the concept, with much power comes much responsibility. For him, power is not a toy. With this in mind, can we blame him for not wanting to subject himself and his family to this form of self-flagellation?

You see, the people that want to be President are usually narcissists. They are not the reluctant heroes. They are the ones that cry, "Pick me pick me, I want to do it! I can do it, I am the best. Pick me, pick me." They want the world to revolve around them, they want to be the center of attention. And if they can't be the main attraction, they either blow up (See:Bill Clinton) or take their ball and go home (See: Ross Perot).

Clinical psychologist Robert Godwin (AKA Gagdad Bob from One Cosmos) has a more in-depth examination into the mind of a narcissist. I recommend reading the entire article, but let's look at a particularly noteworthy passage that is pertinent to this argument.

After characterizing some traits of a narcissist, he inserts this little aside (emphasis is mine):

...this is why it is generally a mistake to elect someone president who desperately wishes to be president, such as LBJ, Nixon, Al Gore, Clinton. Our better presidents could take it or leave it, because they already had satisfying lives and were capable of generating meaning from within....

General Powell has already proven himself, what else would he need to prove? He needs no introduction anywhere. His face is pretty universally recognized and his name is a "household name" that most reasonably intelligent people already know. Whether it be written or spoken, people know who he is. And, if there is one person in the world that we could say is actually self-actualized, it would be Gen. Powell.

Can we say the same thing about the bulk of today's leaders that have been entrusted to lead this nation? I highly doubt it.

Open Thread Sunday

One of my readers has suggested that I may want to try a weekend open thread post. Since this is Sunday and October, that means NFL. So if you want to discuss your favorite team, or anything else besides football, feel free to do it here.

Any topic is fair game, the usual good taste rules do apply. But since I have some of the classiest and most intelligent readers in the world, I don't worry about that here. (Thanks to all of you for that.)

I will be watching the Colts play the Jets later on this afternoon. And tonight, you can bet my TV will be tuned into the Seahawks vs. Da Bears.

Test

Test.

As usual Blogger is acting up on my end. Posts show up on IE but not Firefox. Can anyone see this on Firefox?

EU Court Wants Barriers To Corporate Takeovers To End

From the IHT comes this article:

PARIS-Europe's highest court gave fresh ammunition Thursday to European Union regulators to clear away barriers to cross border mergers, amid a wave of protectionist sentiment in countries like Germany, France, and Italy.

The European Commission immediately issued a new warning to EU capitals to give up the veto rights some of them hold in strategic companies, meant to shield them from unwanted -usually foreign - suitors.

The overall sentiment in Europe has been for globalization, for some time now. In addition to this philosophy, many in Europe have been singing the praises for European unity, through this perceived panacea known as the EU. That is until, someone from another country wants to buy into their country's companies.

But globalists and Europhiles cannot have it both ways. While it is sounds good on paper to promote this new found continental unity and cooperation, it also reeks of hypocrisy to obstruct foreign investment.

Talking the talk is one thing, walking the walk is another. Setting an example is certainly MORE important than dictating the policies.

Hating Jews For Being Jews (And The Indifference of Many In The West)

From Victor Davis Hanson (courtesy of RCP) comes his latest essay, The New Anti-Semitism. Usually, he makes an compelling argument, but with this one I must take some exception to the overall message that he indicates in the title and in his claim. His facts are valid enough. But, having read this piece, an old line from the song "We Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who, came to mind:

Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.

(If you have ever seen the Who in concert that's the last line in this song, just before the song and the concert ends, with Pete Townsend slamming his guitar into the stage.)

But why do I say this? I do not see this new form of anti-semitism as much different than the old forms. Let's look at his opening statement:

Hating Jews, on racial as well as religious grounds, is as old as the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Later in Europe, pogroms and the Holocaust were the natural devolution of that elemental venom.

Anti-Semitism, after World War II, often avoided the burning crosses and Nazi ranting. It often appeared as a more subtle animosity, fueled by envy of successful Jews in the West. "The good people, the nice people" often were the culprits, according to a character in the 1947 film "Gentleman's Agreement," which dealt with the American aristocracy's social shunning of Jews.

A recent third type of anti-Jewish odium is something different. It is a strange mixture of violent hatred by radical Islamists and the more or less indifference to it by Westerners.

This is where he and I disagree. This is nothing new or different, in my view. This is the same anti-semitism, the same hatred, only the reasons for that hatred are different. The only exception is how far this "so-called" new wave has progressed, so far.

In Nazi Germany, it started out subtle. But, it was allowed to progress to the ultimate form of hatred, which was genocide. Why? Mostly because the rest of the world was in either a state of denial or just did not care.

They saw the events that led up to the worst manifestations of deep-seeded hatred, and they flat out ignored them. Far too many people (flat out) overlooked Kristallnacht and all of the hateful propaganda and rhetoric that whipped that nation into a paranoid frenzy, so much so, that the bulk of that nation's population began to feed into the lies and the vitriolic demonization of a small but brilliant group of people that were only guilty of being, who they were.

Lies told bold enough and long enough, soon have a way of being accepted as truth. They were a successful bunch and many resented it. Look at all of the brilliant contributions Jewish scientists have made to the world and tell me just what they have done to deserve going to gas chambers in mass numbers.

Now, let's look at today's anti-semitism, which Mr Hanson is claiming to be so different:

Those who randomly shoot Jews for being Jews - whether at a Jewish center in Seattle or at synagogues in Istanbul - are for the large part Muslim zealots. Most in the West explain away the violence. They chalk it up to anger over the endless tit-for-tat in the Middle East. Yet privately they know that we do not see violent Jews shooting Muslims in the United States or Europe.

This is the same form of indifference as yesteryear, at least in my estimation it is. There are many right here in the U.S. that couldn't care any less.

From the hard leftists that blame the state of Israel for the world's ills to the neo-Nazi Aryan supremacist types that blame the world's ills on Jews in general. But, the result is the same. The motives for the hatred may be different, but there is no difference as far as outcome is concern. Hatred is hatred, whatever the excuse may be given to justify it.

The state-run, and thus government-authorized, newspapers of the Middle East, slander Jews in barbaric fashion. "Mein Kampf" (translated, of course, as "Jihadi") sells briskly in the region. Hamas and Hezbollah militias on parade emulate the style of brownshirts. In response, much of the Western public snoozes. They are far more worried over whether a Danish cartoonist has caricatured Islam, or if the pope has been rude to Muslims when quoting an obscure 600-year-old Byzantine dialogue.

If that's not enough, look at this snippet that precedes the previous one:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promises to wipe Israel "off the map." He seems eager for the requisite nuclear weapons to finish off what an Iranian mullah has called a "one -bomb state" - meaning Israel's destruction would only require one nuclear weapon. Iran's theocracy intends to turn the idea of a Jewish state on its head. Instead of Israel being a safe haven for Jews in their historical birthplace, the Iranians apparently find that concentration only too convenient for their own final nuclear solution.

As chilling and frightening as this may be, it is certainly not surprising. But that's not all of it, get a load of this next excerpt:

In response, here at home the Council on Foreign Relations rewards the Iranian president with an invitation to speak to its membership. At the podium of that hallowed chamber, Ahmadinejad, who questions whether the Holocaust ever took place, basically dismissed a firsthand witness of Dachau by asking whether he really could be that old.

Now let's compare this with the indifference of yesteryear. To do this, you have to read this. There you will find a list of nations that turned a blind eye, back then. And even today, many people in these same countries are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the escalating events seen in the present day.

So, to say that this brand of anti-semitism is new, ignores many aspects of history. To think that this cannot ever happen again, demonstrates a certain naivete that can only be overcome by people opening their eyes to the past events. The events that are occurring today are bone-chilling reminders of similar events that were allowed to escalate, to what later became an out of hand situation that could have prevented, had it been dealt with much earlier.

And despite Mr. Hanson's many truths that are included in this essay of his, he misses the bigger picture that needs to be considered in the trends that are forming, in both the Middle East and the West, today. Western nations may not be openly collaborating with Iran by sending Jews to Iran to be exterminated, as was done by many during the Holocaust. But, by turning a deaf ear to the early warning signs that the Iranian government's leadership are freely displaying, how much longer will it be before this becomes a scenario that results in even more dead Jews?

This is a much more important question to ask, because this next time it will not be by a gas chamber, but from a nuclear bomb sent through the air on a missile. It will not take months to round up Jews and exterminate them a few hundred at a time, This time it will only take a few minutes, because millions are rounded up in a small area already (an area that was set up for them to live in peace and prevent this kind of atrocity from ever happening again).

Maybe in one respect VDH is right, this is different in that the violence against Jews has escalated by technology and logistics; and in that respect it stands to get even worse. But make no mistake, the anti-semitism today is the same hatred felt back in days of the Holy Roman Empire, led by Christians that blamed the Jews of that day, for the ones that killed Christ in a previous period. It's just Muslims that are propagating this hatred, today. And it's the same indifference of others that emboldens them to spread it.

It's Over

I am back home now, things appear to have went well. As you may guess I am very sore and doped up. So right now, it's a case of so far, so good. Thanks to all of you for your prayers and/or words of encouragement. As soon as I feel more with it, I will be back posting.

Showtime

Well, it's showtime. I am off to the surgery center. I am first case, so there is no waiting. Not only that, the surgeon is well-rested and fresh.

Thanks again to all of you that sent up prayers and gave me words of encouragement.