Tuesday, January 27, 2009
An Answer To Prayer
So, some of you know that I have been praying for God to present Himself to me in an opportunity to volunteer. Well, last night I went to a Men's Bible Study, for the first time in "ages and ages; a really, really, really long time" (Mugatu played by Will Farrell in Zoolander). As the leader was getting ready to introduce the guest speaker, he first had some one come up who is a project coordinator for an organization called San Diego Fire Relief. Ding, Ding, Ding! It was like an alarm went off in my head and heart. It's amazing how God puts things on your heart, and requires obedience before he grants those things to you. Roughly only 10% of the homes that were destroyed in San Diego 14 months ago have been rebuilt. That means that there are still 90% of the affected households that are "displaced". All I'm volunteering to do is go cut some branches, clear some bushes, and maybe hang some fence. If anyone wants to join me, it would be an awesome way of giving of yourself and your time!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I'm really trying to give the man a chance...
But, I just find it so hard.
5 Executive Orders in less than 3 days!!!!!????
Well let's not do any research. Let's not be thorough. No, no, no...haste is much more practical. A man of the people? What about the 300,000+ people marching for Life today on Washington? Not even so much an acknowledgement. Well it could be because he was too busy being sworn in over and over again. It could be that he and Joe were trying to figure out how to swear in their staff. Regardless there was no attention paid to a most noble, and peaceful (something liberal activists know nothing about) demonstration. A demonstration that you would think that a man who, claims to be able to take America to the moral high ground (seriously?), would be interested in supporting. Not for someone who is so blatantly against the preservation of life, with out exceptions (including partial birth abortions). Speaking of early Executive Orders. George W. Bush 1 in the first 30 days, and this was after his predecessor dismantled our military and national security. Bill Clinton 1 in the first 30 days. George H.W.Bush 0 in the first 30 days. Ronald Reagan 0 in the first 30 days, and this was after taking over for the massive American Failure that was Jimmy Carter. The reason, because they all felt that the need and duty to research the issues once fully submerged as President was better than making a decision out of haste, or to prove a point that "change" is here.
On a side note, our new financial adviser to the President, told congress today that the new economic stimulus package (a.k.a. the first GIANT TAX INCREASE) should be used strictly against "skilled professionals"...sorry college graduates, you worked hard and I know times are tough, but no break for you. Also, this should be used strictly against "white-male construction workers". Well, I guess I'm doubly screwed, and so are the people that are going to be running his "Infrastructure Improvement" (a.k.a. another GIANT TAX) projects that the new Administration is trying to use to hurt, wait I mean "help" the American People. I'm sure these "skilled professionals" are really going to put their best foot forward. Now this is a little something that I like to call Racism. Oh yes it is. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment. (Dictionary.com)
I'm trying, but when it's the third day and things are already so absurd it makes it hard. I said from the beginning that I wont treat my leadership like the left treated our previous leaders, but I will challenge the decisions that I disagree with. Hey, I'm only American, and that's what American's do...we challenge each other to do better. I would really like the new President to do better than this.
5 Executive Orders in less than 3 days!!!!!????
Well let's not do any research. Let's not be thorough. No, no, no...haste is much more practical. A man of the people? What about the 300,000+ people marching for Life today on Washington? Not even so much an acknowledgement. Well it could be because he was too busy being sworn in over and over again. It could be that he and Joe were trying to figure out how to swear in their staff. Regardless there was no attention paid to a most noble, and peaceful (something liberal activists know nothing about) demonstration. A demonstration that you would think that a man who, claims to be able to take America to the moral high ground (seriously?), would be interested in supporting. Not for someone who is so blatantly against the preservation of life, with out exceptions (including partial birth abortions). Speaking of early Executive Orders. George W. Bush 1 in the first 30 days, and this was after his predecessor dismantled our military and national security. Bill Clinton 1 in the first 30 days. George H.W.Bush 0 in the first 30 days. Ronald Reagan 0 in the first 30 days, and this was after taking over for the massive American Failure that was Jimmy Carter. The reason, because they all felt that the need and duty to research the issues once fully submerged as President was better than making a decision out of haste, or to prove a point that "change" is here.
On a side note, our new financial adviser to the President, told congress today that the new economic stimulus package (a.k.a. the first GIANT TAX INCREASE) should be used strictly against "skilled professionals"...sorry college graduates, you worked hard and I know times are tough, but no break for you. Also, this should be used strictly against "white-male construction workers". Well, I guess I'm doubly screwed, and so are the people that are going to be running his "Infrastructure Improvement" (a.k.a. another GIANT TAX) projects that the new Administration is trying to use to hurt, wait I mean "help" the American People. I'm sure these "skilled professionals" are really going to put their best foot forward. Now this is a little something that I like to call Racism. Oh yes it is. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment. (Dictionary.com)
I'm trying, but when it's the third day and things are already so absurd it makes it hard. I said from the beginning that I wont treat my leadership like the left treated our previous leaders, but I will challenge the decisions that I disagree with. Hey, I'm only American, and that's what American's do...we challenge each other to do better. I would really like the new President to do better than this.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Spiritual Gift Test
This is a test from our Church website that helps you see where your areas of strength and areas of improvement are. It's pretty cool. I'll post my results, and I'd love to see yours too.
27 Leader/Administrator
25 Prophet/Perceiver
24 Server
23 Teacher
22 Giver
22 Exhorter/Encourager
20 Mercy/Compassion
http://www.therocksandiego.org/giftstest/
27 Leader/Administrator
25 Prophet/Perceiver
24 Server
23 Teacher
22 Giver
22 Exhorter/Encourager
20 Mercy/Compassion
http://www.therocksandiego.org/giftstest/
"Obamas Precarious Position"
President-elect Obama and his team are facing a problem confronted by most of his predecessors.
Those who voted for him in November did so for many reasons. Some voted for him simply because he’s a Democrat or because, having soured on Republicans in Washington, he isn’t a Republican.
Others voted for him because they wanted to help elect the first African-American president in our history, and still others because they found his opponent wanting.
Mr. Obama’s problem as he takes office, however, is that voters tend to identify their candidates with their own views and assume that once elected, those candidates will do what they hoped they would do when they pulled the lever on Election Day. This problem is exacerbated by the simple fact that most voters, while not simply “single-issue” voters, tend to be interested in one or a very small cluster of issues. Thus, those who supported Obama early because of his opposition to the Iraq war heard what he said on that issue early on and tuned out his later, amended statements. Likewise, voters who expected him to “go after” higher-income taxpayers with a vengeance probably didn’t pay a lot of attention to his more measured general-election campaign rhetoric.
Now voters find they’ve elected a president who has not only decided to keep George W. Bush’s Defense secretary, but one who experts are now predicting will follow a Bush-ite foreign policy. That, at least, seems to be the opinion of Foreign Policy magazine’s senior editor, Christian Brose, who concludes in a recent article, “The Making of George W. Obama,” that with Obama in the White House and in charge of U.S. foreign policy, “we’re likely to end up with a lot more of the same.” One wonders how all this sits with the boys and girls at MoveOn.org.
Most presidents face this problem, but Mr. Obama won by appearing to be more things to more different groups and people than previous presidents — and keeping things together could prove incredibly difficult.
Whether Obama can hold his troops together while leading from the center remains to be seen, but as with most new presidents, his supporters and opponents alike should give him a chance. His success will depend on how he handles external challenges on the one hand and the priority he gives ideological and partisan initiatives he supported during or before launching his campaign on the other. He is going to have to make some tough choices, and they will determine his future relations with his liberal base, his friends in Congress, and those who wish any president well although we might oppose some of what he wants to do.
That said, our new president and his advisers seem to believe that, in responding to the national economic crisis, they can act as if even the most basic laws of economics have been repealed. Folks who last year condemned George W. Bush as a spendthrift, for example, are today lining up behind a “stimulus” package that could run the debt up by as much as a trillion dollars and which, from early reports, will resemble nothing so much as a cover for traditional congressional pork-barrel spending.
After Sept. 11, 2001, virtually every major piece of legislation that came before the Congress was described as a “security” measure. Thus, support for both the USA Patriot Act and that year’s farm bill were needed, their sponsors argued, to protect us from terrorists. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Next year’s “Bridge to Nowhere” will be foisted upon us by advocates who are already arguing that building it will stimulate the economy. In fact, it appears that the new administration will eliminate congressional earmarks by rolling every half-baked request into the stimulus package.
These, however, are points worth arguing without partisan rancor and should, given the economic circumstances of the country, be at the top of both parties’ agendas without either party abandoning a serious, substantive debate. In facing an economic threat of the magnitude of today’s, it should be possible for both parties to find areas of agreement that will allow meaningful action so long as neither uses the crisis simply as an excuse to promote its own agenda.
If, however, the new administration makes an early attempt to change the rules of the game in its favor by, for example, reinstituting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to shut down conservative talk radio or by pushing early for “card check” legislation to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, Mr. Obama may well please some of his most ardent backers, but the new president’s honeymoon will be short and the partisan and ideological sniping that has defined this city in recent years will return quickly, decisively, and for good reason.
It’s up to him.
David Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and can be reached at keeneacu@aol.com.
Those who voted for him in November did so for many reasons. Some voted for him simply because he’s a Democrat or because, having soured on Republicans in Washington, he isn’t a Republican.
Others voted for him because they wanted to help elect the first African-American president in our history, and still others because they found his opponent wanting.
Mr. Obama’s problem as he takes office, however, is that voters tend to identify their candidates with their own views and assume that once elected, those candidates will do what they hoped they would do when they pulled the lever on Election Day. This problem is exacerbated by the simple fact that most voters, while not simply “single-issue” voters, tend to be interested in one or a very small cluster of issues. Thus, those who supported Obama early because of his opposition to the Iraq war heard what he said on that issue early on and tuned out his later, amended statements. Likewise, voters who expected him to “go after” higher-income taxpayers with a vengeance probably didn’t pay a lot of attention to his more measured general-election campaign rhetoric.
Now voters find they’ve elected a president who has not only decided to keep George W. Bush’s Defense secretary, but one who experts are now predicting will follow a Bush-ite foreign policy. That, at least, seems to be the opinion of Foreign Policy magazine’s senior editor, Christian Brose, who concludes in a recent article, “The Making of George W. Obama,” that with Obama in the White House and in charge of U.S. foreign policy, “we’re likely to end up with a lot more of the same.” One wonders how all this sits with the boys and girls at MoveOn.org.
Most presidents face this problem, but Mr. Obama won by appearing to be more things to more different groups and people than previous presidents — and keeping things together could prove incredibly difficult.
Whether Obama can hold his troops together while leading from the center remains to be seen, but as with most new presidents, his supporters and opponents alike should give him a chance. His success will depend on how he handles external challenges on the one hand and the priority he gives ideological and partisan initiatives he supported during or before launching his campaign on the other. He is going to have to make some tough choices, and they will determine his future relations with his liberal base, his friends in Congress, and those who wish any president well although we might oppose some of what he wants to do.
That said, our new president and his advisers seem to believe that, in responding to the national economic crisis, they can act as if even the most basic laws of economics have been repealed. Folks who last year condemned George W. Bush as a spendthrift, for example, are today lining up behind a “stimulus” package that could run the debt up by as much as a trillion dollars and which, from early reports, will resemble nothing so much as a cover for traditional congressional pork-barrel spending.
After Sept. 11, 2001, virtually every major piece of legislation that came before the Congress was described as a “security” measure. Thus, support for both the USA Patriot Act and that year’s farm bill were needed, their sponsors argued, to protect us from terrorists. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Next year’s “Bridge to Nowhere” will be foisted upon us by advocates who are already arguing that building it will stimulate the economy. In fact, it appears that the new administration will eliminate congressional earmarks by rolling every half-baked request into the stimulus package.
These, however, are points worth arguing without partisan rancor and should, given the economic circumstances of the country, be at the top of both parties’ agendas without either party abandoning a serious, substantive debate. In facing an economic threat of the magnitude of today’s, it should be possible for both parties to find areas of agreement that will allow meaningful action so long as neither uses the crisis simply as an excuse to promote its own agenda.
If, however, the new administration makes an early attempt to change the rules of the game in its favor by, for example, reinstituting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to shut down conservative talk radio or by pushing early for “card check” legislation to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, Mr. Obama may well please some of his most ardent backers, but the new president’s honeymoon will be short and the partisan and ideological sniping that has defined this city in recent years will return quickly, decisively, and for good reason.
It’s up to him.
David Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and can be reached at keeneacu@aol.com.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Smoking or Non?
There was a new law passed in California: We are no longer allowed to smoke while driving if there are minors in the vehicle. We already can't text, use the hand-held portion of the phone, or obviously drink alcohol (which was legal not too long ago). What's next? Maybe they will place a volume governor on vehicles. I'm not a smoker, and it is actually very gross to me, but I certainly would rather have my freedoms protected rather than have a disgusting habit banned. At first I was all for the smoking ban in restaurants, but the more I started thinking about it (and listening to my mother and sister), I realized that this is a deliberate infringement on our rights. Any thoughts?
Friday, January 2, 2009
This Time vs. Last Time
So Patti is pregnant again and I couldn't be more happy. We told my parents over Christmas break and there was just pure joy, happiness, and excitement. You see, the last time that I sprung this kind of news on them it was met with a different reaction.
This time the room was filled with warmth and joy. Last time the room was filled with broken hearts and worry...maybe even some anger. This time the woman is my wife. Last time the girl was my girlfriend. This time my wife is a Christian. Last time my girlfriend was an Atheist. This time I was a renewed Christian soul. Last time I was immature, lost and broken. This time we told them together, with our son Matthew. Last time I went alone for fear of what my mother might say. This time I was bursting with pride. Last time I was cringing in fear. This time there were high-fives and fist bumps...OK and some hugging. Last time there were used Kleenex's. This time we couldn't wait to tell everyone. Last time I could have lied and hid for 9 more months. This time the child was conceived in God's presence. Last time the child was conceived in Sin. This time was much better than last time.
This time the room was filled with warmth and joy. Last time the room was filled with broken hearts and worry...maybe even some anger. This time the woman is my wife. Last time the girl was my girlfriend. This time my wife is a Christian. Last time my girlfriend was an Atheist. This time I was a renewed Christian soul. Last time I was immature, lost and broken. This time we told them together, with our son Matthew. Last time I went alone for fear of what my mother might say. This time I was bursting with pride. Last time I was cringing in fear. This time there were high-fives and fist bumps...OK and some hugging. Last time there were used Kleenex's. This time we couldn't wait to tell everyone. Last time I could have lied and hid for 9 more months. This time the child was conceived in God's presence. Last time the child was conceived in Sin. This time was much better than last time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)