This is one that brings tears to your eyes. Thanks for Michelle Malkin in showing this one to me. This is an Agent Tim Online Homeschool Blogger Mirror site special, so don't miss this story. I'll wait for you to read it.

Marine has farewell dinner with family before shipping off to Iraq....

That's what I'm talking about.

Well done, sir. Well done.

A silent deed is so rare.

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Cotton, police, dogs, plastic bags, a large book, a wallet, CD's, microphones, grass, cheese, a piano, and codfish.

What do all these items have in common with one another?

Absolutely nothing.

So on to the real post!

Imagine:

If I was given a chance to meet President Bush and his cabinet, I would be absolutely thrilled! I would prepare by getting some really nice clothes, doing my hair, brushing my teeth (twice), and just simply cleaning up.

Even if I didn't agree with the President, I would show him honor and respect. And the last thing I would think of doing is cussing in his presence.

But we still have Christians who believe that profanity is a normal part of our language, and those of us who say it's wrong are legalists.

Take for example my comments on a Christian site that promotes the use of profanity:

"Could you refrain from cussing? I mean, you want to be a good example, but foul language won't get anywhere. Just a word from a fellow Christian...God Bless...you're on the right track with Harry Potter. As a teen myself, I've been researching and studying this, and I think you're pretty much right."

The blogger's response was "Are you a legalist?"

My response to that:

"Don't worry, no legalist. Shoot...I think a better way to state it is: "When I hear someone cuss, I don't think that person's being like Christ."

But hey, you're right. I'm not one to cast the first stone. I just wanted to mention that I don't believe it's right to do that.

My comment wasn't one supposed to be "You're not a Christian because you cuss!!!" or anything like that. I'm not one to do something like that.

I don't believe that God wants Christians to blatantly promote profanity. And that's not my opinion. It's God's Word.

This bloggers views are:

With hundreds and thousands of commands in the Bible, people are still "all over" her "***" for something that she claims isn't even commanded in the Bible.

My first point would be to refute her view that the Bible, when talking about edyfying others and the importance of the tongue, only refers to content and not to particular words.

Does it need to list the words not to say? Our words make up our message.

But she says that I'm adding to the Bible's message and that I have a "****" of a lot of nerve to say something like that.

Let's look at Colossians 3:5-10:

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

Verse 8 in the Amplified version is very interesting:

"But now put away and rid yourselves [completely] of all these things: anger, rage, bad feeling toward others, curses and slander, and foulmouthed abuse and shameful utterances from your lips!"

And also in the Message:

"But you know better now, so make sure it's all gone for good: bad temper, irritability, meanness, profanity, dirty talk."

We are not to hold on to our earthly nature. We are to be people of clean lips. We are not to be hardened by this world.

But listen to what this blogger's daughter does when she hears foul language:

"My daughter doesn't blush or gasp when daddy says "Isaac's kickin' your ***." (And why was this word delted out in this blogger's Homeschoolblogger site and not the main site that is run by them?)

She claims that some words found in the Bible (that are profane now) are not Holy, so why can't we use them?

Because their purpose is NOT to express disgust. That's not their meaning. Using a word to express anger or disgust is the definition of profanity.

Profanity is not our everyday language. You fool yourself to think that. This article puts it well:

"In a world that has devised perverse usages of language to communicate sinful anger I think the Christian should avoid it. Further, as commonplace cussing is in today's uneducated and lazy society the Christian should do his best to "rise above" and not "conform to."

Take, for example, my story of meeting the President. I would not swear in his presence. Yet many people do it before One who is much more important than our President.

What will you say before God?

I sure hope it's not profanity.

In an article on this blogger's site, they posted an interesting article by Christianity Today Here's a short excerpt:

"Jesus did not demand that those he talked with clean up their act before they approached him. He loved them, listened to them, and went to work on the heart, knowing that was more important than starting in on the surface details."

Number one--I don't demand that someone can't cuss before becoming a Christian.

Number two--Jesus went to work on the heart, knowing that what's in the heart flows from the mouth.

When the Bible is talking about profanity, is it only talking about God and Jesus being used incorrectly?

But the argument goes on for profanity: The culture does it--it's in the movies--since when did God say I can't say ****?

The blogger keeps using verses against "unwholesome talk" and saying that they are about our "message." Our message being "what is helpful to the edification of others." She says that what's vile to one person isn't vile to another one. It's just "colorful."

"Blankety-blankety, blankety-blank" is not our every day language! That's something we don't do in Church! Why should we do it elsewhere?

Not cussing is showing common decency.

As to the verse the blogger mentions, it's not talking about our message. It's talking about our "talk." That would be our speech. Speech is made up of words.

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Profanity is used when we're mad, angry, or...uh...mad.
 Colossions 4:6 says:

"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."

 
Not "colorful," but "seasoned with salt."

"For,
   "Whoever would love life
      and see good days
   must keep his tongue from evil
      and his lips from deceitful speech.
    He must turn from evil and do good;
      he must seek peace and pursue it.
    For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
      and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
   but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

    Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?"

1. Peter 3:10-13

Where are the verses that tell us profanity is perfectly fine (other than instances where a word is used in it's original meaning)?

The blogger's response is:

Sorry, but I think I'm going to laugh at you because this whole **** thing is ridiculous.

Why? Because you want to hold on?

Profanity is wrong. It's up to you to listen to the Lord. It's not me. I'm not being a "legalist." You can call me that all you want. You could cuss me out, but I will go by these verses. By God's Word.

(Please no profanity in the comments. It will be deleted anyway and I don't have time to waste when letting them through.)

Though I haven't read this other article in full, I believe it to be a good bit of information that is worth reading.

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link
• Trackback URL • 0 Trackbacks

Dateline: Jul. 28, 2005

The Unaswerable Question

The past few days two things have been on my mind: I've been thinking about humility, and I've been thinking about the statement "leaving out the bad and taking the good" in the case of watching things and reading things.

You can take, for example, Harry Potter. I'm sure you can find something good about the books--but is it worth it to read them?

Is it good for us to search through the mud to find a diamond? Won't we get dirty in the process?

Many books present good material and bad material. In fiction books, the "bad elements" can many times be used to teach. But not always.

When we come to non-fiction, we're facing a similar dilemma.

If a book presents good material, yet has many elements that go against God's word, should we read it?

Not when the bad leads us astray, and is against God's teaching. And we must ask ourselves: Can we really trust ourselves to avoid the bad to get the good?

It's a tough question, I know. It's hard for me to answer too.

So let's go to the Bible:

"Test everything, Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil."

1 Ths. 5:21-22

Without thinking too much, we could look at that verse and see contradiction.

"Hold on to the good."

Does it mean read a book and hold on to the good from it?

No:

"Avoid every kind of evil."

Let's look back at Roman's 12:9, which is a chapter on love.

"Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

When we read "gray" books, that include good and bad, should we be reading them?

Or a better question is: Are there really "gray" books and material?

Some things are left up to a Christian to decide for themselves. But where is the line?

We need to humbly go before God and seek the answers. We need to look at ourselves in a true light and honestly answer.

It hurts, I know.

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link
• Trackback URL • 0 Trackbacks

Dateline: Jul. 27, 2005

Wednesday's Ramblings: Humid, Hot, and Happy

I guess you could say that my last post was quite a success. I really enjoyed writing it...even though it took two days! Maybe I can start linking to people that way. Sort of like "If you get into Agent Tim's mind, you get linked." That might be pretty fun.

Right now in D.C., we're working to beat the heat. And I'm not talking about California heat, with no humidity. I'm talking about suffocating heat that you can feel at midnight. I'm serious. It feels like 110 degrees right now, and you can hardly breathe. It's all you can do to stay alive. I sure feel sorry for the guys who have to work outside.

A few other exciting things have happened in yours truly's life. I got some Adidas Sambas the other night (and banging my head becuase they're 5 bucks cheaper on Amazon). Man, they sure are nice. Soccer starts in just a month, so I'm starting to run (inside of course).

Also, I've been working on two projects right now:

1. Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings review that will premier this August in Virtue Magazine.

2. A blog post called: "The Unaswerable Question?"

I've also been exploring the blog world, and have found some great new blogs. One blog has given me a laugh by it's title, and also a picture for the header. You need to check her site out.

I also noticed that Mission 3:6teen is now back to blogging, and the world is better because of it!

Another site you might like to visit is Marla Swoffer's site. I'd been there once or twice, but you might like to check it out. Just remember to come back here!

I'd like to end this rambling with a little more rambling.

Have you ever wondered about the view that we can "take the good out of a book and leave the bad"? Isn't that like sticking your hands in mud to find a pearl? Should we do that?

Just a taste of tomorrow or tonight.

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link
• Trackback URL • 0 Trackbacks

Dateline: Jul. 25, 2005

How Blogging Has Affected My Life

I hate blogging about blogging, so I will assure you that this post is not your regular post on blogging. No, it's more about my life.

Just recently, I've begun to notice that in almost everything I do, I begin to remember a blog...it's like I relate things to blogs. So I've compiled a list.

Your sitting there, watching the O'Reilly Factor. You remember Michelle Malkin (who subs)!

You switch the channel, and suddenly you're watching the history channel special on radio shows. You think of Hugh Hewitt!

You decide to get up and take a break. The phone rings, so you  walk over, and pick up the reciever:

"Hey, I was wondering what your opinion of homeschooling is?"

You talk for 30 minutes about homeschooling, and while you're at it, you suggest reading Spunkyhomeschool. Go figure. And why not her daughter too?

You decide to go back into your room, and switch the TV back on. There in front of you is the news headlines: Terrorists attack London. Who do you  think of? Adrian Warnock.

The show ends...up next: Adventures in New Zealand. Allthings2All.

Well, things are getting crazy, so you go to your library to pick out a book, and you notice that The Purpose Driven Life is sitting on your desk. Your first thought is Tim Challies!

After reading a few chapters, you go down stairs to watch a television special with your family.

"What is this again?"

"Oh...it's a history of the CIA."

You remember Agent Tim.

After the show, you start talking to a family member about African American conservatives. La Shawn Barber. The conversation turns to Natalie Holloway...you think of Scared Monkeys.

Then you start tallking about teens and movies.  The Political Teen.

Next Day: Your first thought.

"I wonder how many times Blogotional posted today?"

Not many, I'm sure.

The day goes on as usual. After work, you drive past a large stand selling Fireworks...Pyromaniac rushes into your mind. As soon as you start thinking about him, you see a large amount of people holding signs up on the side of the street.

"Why, it's a demonstration!"

It's about the War in Iraq...you think of Iraq The Model.

Well, after that experience, you go home and your kid asks you if he can become a boy scout.

Better as the Blogging Boy Scout about his experiences.

Then you start to wonder about your blog design...so you go on your computer and head to Mission 3:16's and Smarthomeschool's StillThinking.

Any more you can add?

• 3 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 23, 2005

Homeschool Apologetics: On The Offensive

An interesting article popped up on the web recently, and thanks to "Spunky spotting", I'm doing a response.

Dave Arnold, head custodian at Browstown Elementary in Southern Illinois, says that homeschools are run by well-meaning amatuers.

"Certain jobs are best left to the pros, such as, formal education."

Quickly, I would like to point out, that to administer a standardized test, all you have to do is have the ability to read. Then you can do anything.

Most people don't take their kids out of schools because of teachers. So, strike one. Mr Arnold doesn't tackle the issues of the curriculum and the enviroment.

He believes that only handicapped, bedridden, and farm kids (who live far from schools) should be homeschooled. Nonsense!

Mr. Arnold uses a number of statements that he found at a homeschool website, and states some valid concerns.

The webisite states that "It's not a difficult as it looks."

Arnold: "Let's face it, teaching is difficult even for experienced professionals. Wannabees have no idea."

Now, before you get riled up saying that you have every idea in the world and that he has no clue what he's talking about. Take into consideration that this website is talking about prospective homeschoolers, who might not know what they're getting into. But what else does the website say? What's the context other than the fact they're talking about prospective homeschoolers?

If you have to send your kids to school because you can't control them enough to teach them, then you have some problems. Will homeschooling them help? I don't know, I'm not a homeschooling mom.

When we have to send our kids to teachers to raise them how they want, and how the government wants, we may have some issues. No, we DO have issues.

Then the website makes a statement that can be taken wrong very easily:

"What about socialization? Forget about it!"

Arnold: "Forget about interacting with others? Are they nuts?"

Sure sounds that way, doesn't it? That statement almost sounds sarcastic, or like a joke. Not interacting with others--ever--is a bad idea. Of course, Mr. Arnold's definition of "socialization" could be different than this website's defintion.

Let's remember, you don't have to go to public school to be "socialized."

The website has this response:

" Okay, once again the socialization issue comes up. If this gentleman had spent 5 MINUTES learning about all the socialization that homeschooled kids get, he wouldn't have bothered including it. But that would be too easy! Better to just assume we're all backwoods wierdos isolating our kids from the world.

My kids are OUT in the WORLD. They play with other kids, not just the one's their own age. By the way, how many original ideas are 7 year old's boys getting from one another? Different ways to make fake noises with their bodies? Hardly enlightening.

My kids talk to grown ups, little kids, the elderly. They ask questions, take advantage of opportunities to meet new people. My kids don't think it's "gross" to play with their siblings, and will make new freinds every time we go to the park.

Homeschooled children are out interacting all the time. The difference is not that our children aren't being socialized, or are "social misfits" but that more of their socialization experiences are positive. Even when there is conflict, there is more direct adult involvement to help them develop better resolution techniques than can be offered in the public school setting no matter how involved the teachers, simply because of adult to child ratios!"

That's what I'm talking about!

Then the website makes a statement that Mr. Arnold grabs like a kid after candy:

"Visit our online bookstore."

Arnold: "Buying a history, science, or math book does not mean an adult can automatically instruct others about the book's content."

No, it doesn't. But, like I said, if you can read, you can probably pass on the information. With all the resources we have today, it's not hard to teach. Anyone can do it.

But Mr. Arnold continues to call homeschooling parents gullible, dumb, inadequate, and making their children unsocialized.

Then Arnold takes, what I would consider, some desperate measures.

"Another website asks for donations...It's obvious to me that these organizations are in it for the money."

Conspiracy theories? Let's not go there.

These organizations are responding to responsible parents who are making good decisions for their kids. In a business, you try to make money.

Then he goes to a better "argument."

"One web site that I visited stated that the best way to combat our nation's "ungodly" public schools was to remove students from then and teach them at home or a Christian school.

I'm certainly not opposed to religious schools, or to anyone standing up for what they believe in. I admire anyone who has the strength to stand up against the majority. But in this case, pulling children our schools is not the best way to fight the laws that govern our education system. No battle has ever been fought be retreating."

By homeschooling we're combating. Some homeschoolers may have used homeschooling as a way to retreat, I know. But that's not the general case.

Public schools are now being forced to reconsider their curriculum, which is absolutely "ungodly." They're trying to find out what they've done wrong. Losing students=losing money. Not good.

Homeschoolers can have just as much an opportunity, if not more, to affect the culture and government.

We're not retreating--we're attacking in a way you didn't think of.

"Don't most parents have a tough enough job teaching their children social, disciplinary, and behavioral skills?"

Stop. Notice he says, "Parents have [the] job [of] teaching social...skills."

No explanation necessary.

"They would be wise to help their children and themselves by leaving the responsibility of teaching math, science, art, writing, history, geography and other subjects to those who are knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible."

Knowledgable? Then what are homeschoolers?

Trained? Do you need special training? I guess that's debatable. I certainly don't think so.

Motivated? I believe that homeschoolers most certainly are motivated to teach their kids the best that they can.

Ask the majority of homeschool mom's and dad's if they feel equipped. With all those money-grubbing businesses we have plenty of resources--resources that are making the public schools lose money because we're not in them.

(On a side note, the article was only the author's opinion, and not necessarily the NEA's)

If you'd like to contact Mr. Arnold, I believe you can write:

451 W. Cherokee, Brownstown, IL.

If you'd like to contact me:

agenttimblog@gmail.com

Or comment. Thanks!

Oh man, there is more. Read this. All homeschooling mom's should.

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link
• Trackback URL • 0 Trackbacks

Dateline: Jul. 22, 2005

Tag Tired

[The following is a satire, that should not be taken personally, or fully seriously. It is more of a "joke." Have fun]

I don't want to be a spoilsport or anything, but is anyone a little tired, as I am, of this whole tagging business? I saw it start, and how it's changed and evolved over the past few weeks. In fact, I have immensely enjoyed this game.

But now, tagging must end. In all it's glory, it must end.

I know who started tagging, and it was truly an interesting idea. But you could just ask a person what their favorite ice cream flavor is...and not start a wave. Maybe I'm just "annoyed" and messing up the fun. Or perhaps I'm voicing the feelings of a few fellow bloggers. We say "farewell to the great tag game on the blogs! You were fun, but now, it is time to take a break!"

My legs are tired.

Perhaps you'll continue, and I'm not the one to make things stop, but these things have to end sometime. Friends, if you want to continue tagging--then tag all the more. But if my voiced concerns and tiredness are found in your souls as well, then let us finish the game.

Let's move on to bigger and better things. Let's get blogging. Let's focus.

So, we move on, to perhaps a greater time. People, welcome to the post-tagging era.

(Some of this was done in a joking manner, but my "concerns" are still true.)

• 8 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 22, 2005

Washington Post: Syrupy Sickness

As Michelle Malkin reports, the Washington Post, my hometown liberal newspaper, which I was glancing at the other day, has sunk to an all-time low.

"It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family..."

What kind of writer is Robin Givhan? Well, that's only the beginning...

"There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes."



The caption on the photo states: "Even the clothes are conservative."

Well, according to this peice of junk, we've got a good candidate.

Givhan claims that the outfits were too bland, to modest, to formal, to "dressed-up." You nitwit! Their father was becoming a Supreme Court Justice! Don't you think they'll want to look their best? They should have dressed like the kid below to please the Post.

"Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It's not about catering to personal comfort. One can't give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?



"But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it."

Want to tell WaPo a thing or two?

E-mail ombudsman@washpost.com or phone 202-334-7582

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 21, 2005

Roughing Up Rice, Roberts

During another solemn day in Britain, we have more news. But first, please note may editorial cartoon on the header. I think you'll enjoy it.

Now on to business.

During a recent visit to Sudan, the site of a huge genocide, Condoleeza Rice recieved a rather cold welcome.

Fox News reports:

"Security forces in the Sudanese capital manhandled U.S. officials and reporters traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, marring her round of meetings with leaders of the new unified government. Rice demanded an apology, and got it.

"It makes me very angry to be sitting there with their president and have this happen," she said. "They have no right to push and shove."

The welcoming party was a little less than welcoming.

Twice, Sudanese guards' hostility toward members of Rice's entourage devolved into shouts and shoving.

As Rice's motorcade arrived at the residence, armed guards slammed the gate shut before three vehicles could get in, including those carrying Rice's interpreter and other aides who were supposed to attend her meeting with [Sudanese President Omar] el-Bashir .

When the officials were finally allowed through the gate, some found themselves barred from entering the building for the meeting. As Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson tried to get in, guards repeatedly pushed and pulled him, and at one point he was shoved into a wall."

Sounds like they really wanted to make an impression, and they most certainly did. Condi was less than warm in her response to the shoving.

Of course...

Ambassador Khidair Haroun Ahmed, head of the Sudanese mission in Washington, attempted to smooth over the situation on the spot. "Please accept our apologies," he told the reporters and aides. "This is not our policy."

Right.

But there was another scuffle moments later.

Reporters, whom guards reluctantly allowed into the meeting for a planned photo session, were harassed and elbowed, and guards repeatedly tried to rip a microphone away from a U.S. reporter. The reporters were told not to ask questions, over State Department objections.

When NBC diplomatic reporter Andrea Mitchell tried to ask el-Bashir about his involvement with alleged atrocities, guards grabbed her and muscled her toward the rear of the room. State Department officials shouted at the guards. "Get your hands off her!" Wilkinson demanded. But all the reporters and a camera crew were physically forced out as Rice and el-Bashir watched."

Makes you want to be really friendly with these guys. It's obvious that they are terrorists who truly have killed thousands of their own people. It's amazing and downright awful that they would treat our people like this!

On the other hand, Bush's nominee John Roberts seems to have recieved a warm welcome into D.C., by both sides. But of course, the opposition is beginning to arise:

"President Bush nominated this corporate lawyer to add to the right-wing activist block of [Justices] Scalia and Thomas," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org. "Instead of a mainstream jurist with a distinguished career as someone who protects the rights of the American people, Bush chose another right-wing crony."

Mainstream as in pro-choice or pro-abortion. For gay rights. Against the death penalty?

Liberal?

People, do you really expect Bush to nominate a liberal judge? Or even moderate?

This man is a fair judge, as shown by his past. He will not rule from the bench. This man is the right man for the judge. We're so glad we've got a conservative judge, and we hope he's like Scalia and Thomas.

"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA . "Only a nominee committed to protecting women's health and safety should be confirmed by the Senate."

No!!! Not true. My follow up to this post should explain better, but that's not true.

"Judge Roberts has a track record of not legislating from the bench. He recognizes the constitutional role of the judiciary and the genius of the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government," said ALEC Executive Director Duane Parde."

Yep. That's right.

Go Roberts, he's the man. I predict Luttig to be next.

(Also, the rumour was that Luttig's family was dressed up the other day, not Roberts...my mistake.)

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 20, 2005

Why I Come Back

People are constantly blogging about blogging. Usually they're struggling with a small readership, or lack of motivation. So they usually ask themselves:

"What makes people come back to my site?"

Well, the certainly might be a good question that can help you in some ways, but I believe there is a better question.

"What makes me come back to my site."

See, your most important reader is you. Even if Sean Hannity is reading your site, you're still the most important reader. If you don't like your own blog, then things aren't right.

So, why do I come back to my own site and read my own posts?

I come back for the website headers (you can see them on my regular site). I love them. It makes the site look fresh, and sends a message to all my readers.

I like my posts because they have good quotes and some fresh thoughts, and interesting links. I enjoy reading them. It's just an extra blessing to have others who like to read them too.

I just like my blog.

I churn out an average of 1 post per day. I've written a total of 274 posts, and received 5008 comments (that includes 4500 spam comments  ) I've made around $-40.00, so it's not for the money.

I do blogging becuase I like my blog.

Whether I have 5 readers or my current 500, I still like my blog.

Reading my blog is like watching a kid grow. It matures, and it gets better with every post.

I like that.

I hope you like your blog too. Whether you have 5 or 500 visits a day, I hope you like your blog.

For blog help, visit these links:
Lessons From A Statistics-Addicted Influence Seeker

Further Lessons From Another Statistics-Addicted Influence Seeker

Pastor Jim Preaches to Bloggers

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 18, 2005

The Party Gospel

Many Christians really have a fervor and a zeal to share the gospel, and share it effectively. Unfortunetely, if it seems "effective," people flock to use it. Today's methods of sharing the gospel are not all correct, and many seem to bring false converts into our churches.

These gospel presentations will make God as something to "improve their flight," which is their life. God is Something to fill that vacum in your heart.

Not quite.

There is some truth in that statement, but very little. The gospel is not an "improve your life" gospel.

Just read the Bible, and you'll agree with me. It won't improve your earthly life, only your eternal life.

What I mean is that you're not garunteed to have a lot of money, or better clothes, etc.

Jenefer Igarashi, The Old Schoolhouse Magazine's publisher recently commented on a pastor she heard at a conference her and her family attended. It's quite interesting:

"A pastor here gave a sermon where he made the case for living and looking like the World, so that the World will feel 'welcome' around us.  He talked about going up into the mountains and partying with a bunch of unbelievers so he could relate with them and then tell them about God. Perhaps they genuinely love the Lord; I will not presume to judge their hearts.  But their methods are dead wrong."

This "partying pastor" may have some issues. I wasn't at the conference to hear it for myself, but if it's like Mrs. Igarashi says, he has some serious issues.

I'm reminded of the story of King Saul and the Amalekites.

The Lord told Saul to go and wipe out the evil Amalekites and not leave any living thing or bring anything back. But Saul didn't listen to God, a and allowed his men to bring back the Amalekite king, and all of the best sheep and cows.

Then Samuel came and confronted Saul. Saul made excuses for his sin, saying that he was going to sacrifice the sheep and cows to God.

"It is better to obey than to sacrifice," said Samuel.

As my pastor (who preached on this yesterday) said:

"Great assets (good qualities, good intentions) are no substitute for obedience."

We can't sin and say we're doing it to please God.

A woman once came to my pastor and told him that she couldn't serve God with the husband that she had. She used that excuse to divorce him.

We cannot let that happen! We must not reject God's laws and sin, then say we're pleasing God.

It's not so.

Partying with friends on a mountain to show them you're normal isn't the way to go.

You can't sin to try to bring someone to Christ. That's not how it works.

It's sad that a pastor might be preaching this, but it is starting to seem all too common. We're not seeing Church growth--only "backsliders." There are Churches out there preaching the Word, and they're growing. But when the bible becomes a "suggestion" book, your church is wrong.

Let's pray changes come soon.

• 4 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 16, 2005

The Tale of Two Constitutions

Sometimes I dread debates on constitutional interpretation. Other times I feel well equipped and ready to jump right in on the debates.

This is one of the "other times."

David Barton is an amazing man--his explanation of the foundation of this great country seems flawless, and I believe they pretty much are. He explains things that are confusing with great simplicity.

In his article, "A Tale of Two Constitutions," he explains the two viewpoints on interpreting the Constitution, a document I hope you've read at least once in your life.

He explains it this way:

"Probably the first exposure most citizens had to the two views came during the 2000 presidential debates. When asked what type of judges should be placed on the bench, candidate Bush responded: "I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government…and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred…I don't believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists." [1]

Candidate Gore countered, "The Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows." [2] Gore later stated, "I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document...We have interpreted our founding charter over the years, and found deeper meanings in it in light of the subsequent experience in American life." [3] So, the two choices are...follow original intent, or construct a living constitution.

Proponents of a living constitution believe that we should not be bound by what dead white guys wrote two centuries ago when slavery was legal, women could not vote, and horses were the fastest means of transportation. Instead, we should live under a constitution that is alive and vibrant, reflecting today's values and beliefs.

Such rhetoric makes a living constitution sound appealing, but it is actually a complete misportrayal of the difference between the two philosophies. In reality, both accommodate an evolving society; in fact, under the strict construction (or originalist) viewpoint, Article V of the Constitution requires that the Constitution be a living document. The real difference between the two approaches is not whether the Constitution should evolve, but rather how those changes should occur--and who should make them. "

See, the people..."We the People," run this country. It is the majority that rules (with boundaries of course), and we are represented, not ruled.

"What about the minority?" you ask.

"While the minority is not to prevail, with its constitutional guarantee of "free speech," it does have the "equal right" to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view. The minority does have equal rights, but equal right is not the same as equal power; the minority is never the equivalent of the majority and should never exercise control over it."

The courts do not rule us either. As Thomas Jefferson noted:

"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have--with others--the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps...And their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible--as the other functionaries are--to the elective control. [10]"

David Barton continues:

"Certainly, the majority will sometimes err, but as Jefferson observed, "its errors are honest, solitary, and short-lived" and can be remedied by "elective control." However, the errors created by judicial decisions are more severe and long-lasting."

And Justice Atonin Scalia weighs in:

"Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary, my [originalist] Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy: pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility. [11]"

In closing:

"In short, then, the living constitution approach empowers an unaccountable elite to make decisions on behalf of the People; original intent empowers the People themselves."

That's exactly right.

For bibliography go here.

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 16, 2005

The Wages of Intolerance: Right Response

The last few days I've been browsing the shark-infested waters of Liberal Christian blogs. The reasons for my visits are still confidential at this time. I'll tell you about it later.

I really can't say I enjoyed my time reading about Christians supporting gay rights, abortion, and a slew of other topics that know the Bible does not support. It wasn't my best experience, but I think it was good to hear the story from the other side.

Let's state a fact really quickly: The Bible does not support gay marriage. Period. If you believe otherwise, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

"Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolaters nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

See also Roman's 1:26-27 and my Defense of Marriage.

We need to go beyond out "yuck factor" and look at the Bible. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. The people who commit this sin are just like us--sinners in need of a Savior. But they are still sinners, and they are headed to the same place all sinners will go. With Christ, you can overcome your sin. Sin is sin, no matter what.

With that, I concluded that many of these Christians are in the wrong. I hate to say it, but the obvious question for me to ask is "How can you be a Christian and a liberal?"

From my viewpoint, it's really hard to see how you can.

On Tuesday, Marci Hamilton on Alternet printed an article, with the title of "The Wages of Intolerance." I immediately jumped into to reading it, as you all know I have a love for this topic.

After the first few paragraphs I thought I was reading a liberal writer's response to the resignation of Sandra Day O' Connor and the upcoming SCOTUS nomination(s).

"The President simply cannot choose a Justice based on [Right Wing group's] religious criteria."

Ms. Hamilton calls herself a "conservative, a Republican, and a Christian" who finds "Christian triumphalism scary."

She claims that the "country was not founded on a single religious viewpoint, as the far right would have it, but rather on a wide diversity of religious beliefs.

She goes on to basically call the Puritans intolerant, arrogant, and right-wingers.

"Far right Christians today...have not respect for disestablishment principles. They are intent on removing barriers between government and religion, and, in fact, making government the servant to religion."

Our nation was established in the context of the English State Church. Government is not to make it's own religion. That's what the founding fathers planned. How do I know this?

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible

Attributed to George Washington*

I have always said and always will say the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.

Attributed to Thomas Jefferson*

So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove to be useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society. I have for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year.

John Quincy Adams

That book sir, is the rock on which our republic rests.

Andrew Jackson

I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this Book. But for it, we could not know right from wrong.

Abraham Lincoln

Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties. Write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of the Book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide for the future. "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."

If you take out of your statutes, your constitution, your family life all that is taken from the Sacred Book, what would there be left to bind society together?

Benjamin Harrison

The Bible is the Word of life--it is a picture of the human heart displayed for all ages and all sorts of conditions of men. I feel sorry for the men who do not read the Bible every day. I wonder why they deprive themselves of the strength and pleasure.

Woodrow Wilson

The American Revolution was preceded by the great religious revival of the middle of the eighteenth century, which had its effect both in England and in the colonies. When the common people turned to the reading of the Bible...when they were stirred with great revival...the way was prepared...It was because religion gave the people a new importance and a new glory that they demanded a new freedom and a new government. We cannot in our generation reject the cause and retain the result.

Calvin Coolidge

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.

Ronald Reagan

Marci Hamilton said "Not only are they [the right] opposed to the separation of church and state, they are also opposed to a balanced government."

She says, "They are insistent that they are right to dominate not just Congress...and the President...but also the Supreme Court."

Ms. Hamilton, in politics you work to get your party in power, and in the majority. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, you do not work to get outnumbered or create a stalemate. That's not how politics work.

The Left is losing. They are not at an advantage, and they know it.

"Their primary criterion for a good Justice is one where they can predict how that Justice will vote on every issue that matters to them."

Do you think we'll try to elect a liberal, or even a moderate? Of course we won't.

She claims to be a conservative, but she refers to the Right as "they" and "their" as if she's another liberal.

Again, I state my question, "How can you be a liberal and a Christian." I'm not saying you can't be one, but it's hard for me to fathom. Very hard.

How can you support gay marriage? Abortion?

I just don't see it. You're not staying with what the Bible says...so do you even believe that?

*"The reason I say "attributed to" below these two quotes is due to the fact that the original text quote written by the founders has not currently been discovered. These quotes have been found rather in works of historians and others writing on the founders." (Virtue Magazine)

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 15, 2005

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 10, 2005

The Ten Commandments: Legal? Not So Sure...

Are the Ten Commandments legal in public buildings? I mean, we're all supposed to have free speech, and Christianity isn't the only religion? Is it wrong to have the Ten Commandments displayed in court houses and other public areas?

I don't know.



You may have seen the header on my site by now, and I hope you got a good laugh at this wonderful cartoon from Faith Mouse.

Are the Ten Commandments supposed to be displayed in court houses, etc.? After listing quotes by founding fathers in support of the Bible, Virtue Magazine states this:

"So we have now heard what your greatest men thought about the Bible. Now we return to the question of the hour. Is a display of the Ten Commandments constitutional, that is to say an establishment of religion by the government forbidden in the First Amendment? The answer, simply is a resounding NO!

The part of the first amendment of the constitution was designed to prevent any one sect of Christians (such as the Baptists, say) from running the nation. That is what that founders had had in England and they wanted no part of it in America."

But...I must say...but...were they talking about the display of the Bible in the court houses? Were they?

I believe it very well could be. But we must look beyond the fact that we love the Ten Commandments and the Bible. I hate to do it, but let's move on really fast and look at reasons that the Ten Commandments should not be in the court houses.

"You can’t force your morals on someone else or they might turn around and force their values on you."

Well, that really stands up...for about 2 seconds. Check out the above article for VM's response to that.

An interesting argument was made by Law Professor Jeff Cooper of  Cooped Up in response to the banning of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court.

"The monument in question is newly-installed, at the instigation and under the authority of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Moore made it clear, in his public statements and in his trial testimony, that his purpose in placing the monument prominently in the courthouse rotunda was to acknowledge the sovereignty of God—the Judeo-Christian God—over the state. As such, Chief Justice Moore's actions represented a clear and powerful governmental endorsement of a particular family of religions. They amount to a frontal assault on the Supreme Court's establishment clause jurisprudence by the most prominent judicial officer in the state."

"There are growing forces seeking to advance a radically different vision of the First Amendment than the one that currently prevails in Supreme Court jurisprudence and to bar contrary voices from the courts. Chief Judge Moore's monument is an important part of this effort. Here we have a religious document, prominently placed in an important government building, for an express religious purpose. If the establishment clause is to retain meaning beyond barring government endorsement of one particular Christian denomination, this action cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. "

For those who haven't looked at the First Amendment lately, since it has become a daily staple of the media, we thought we'd reprint it:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Hat Tip: this post by Jeff Cooper]

Very interesting. I want to pull the quote "governmental endorsement." Would displaying something like the Ten Commandments be government endorsement?

Either you display it, and allow just about anything else, such as the Koran, or you display absolutely nothing. But wouldn't we then be called an atheist state? Isn't that a religion?

An interesting article by Bloomberg stated:

"Governments can post the Ten Commandments on public property as part of a broader display of historical symbols, as long as officials aren't aiming to promote religion, the U.S. Supreme Court said."

Does that make sense? No. It really doesn't.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Attributed to George Washington.

Well, last time I checked, the Ten Commandments were in the Bible.

One way or the other, you are going to "force someone's moral's on another being." So taking the Ten Commandments out of court houses is wrong?

It's so much more complicated than you think. Is it really a circle like I see it? Or is it as black and white as I'd like it to be? There is no way to prove the Ten Commandments should stay, is there, without brining religion (or lack thereof) into it.

I'm telling you, it's more complicated than you think.

Hap MecTweaks sent this interesting email:

Subject: 10 Commandments not allowed in courthouses
From: Hap MecTweaks
Email:
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2005 - 10:40 AM ET
Website Address:

Making the rulings they do, it's a wonder they don't demand all the Federal buildings in Washington be torn down and re-built, to include the Washington monument. I think we have some dangerous people hanging out in our capitol. Below is coppied and pasted from an E-mail I received along with pictures of our US supreme court carvings on doors and entrance. Looks as though Thomas Jefferson was right on the money??? --Hap

"Re-educating liberal Democrats and the 14% of Americans that are denying factual American history. As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view, it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C. James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. "Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777. Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy, the rule of few over many. The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said: "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional? It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!"

Two things to conclude. In the VM article, I'm the guy in the blue and yellow jacked walking up the center of the Supreme Court steps.

And prayer will always remain in schools as long as tests continue to be administered.

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 9, 2005

Some Still Missing, Many Found

Adrian Warnock had a wonderful post on helping to find those still missing in London. Catez Steven's family is safe in London.

"There is a British resilience and pragmatism that kicks in when something like this happens. Condemnation of the attacks has been expressed from various world leaders, including some prominent Islamic leaders. Personally I would like to see expressions of those opinions from certain Islamic states on a more continual basis."

Global Voices Online had an interesting roundup of posts. The response of Muslim bloggers to the attacks.

The above picture on my header only lists a few of those missing. If you are from London and see any suspicious activity, you are to call the number in red. There are more names here.

Back to Catez: "My [other] sister had arrived at work before the bombings happened. She said, "I was on the same line as one of the bombings, but earlier".

Praise the Lord! We're so glad that they are safe.

I wanted to also mention that Sean Hannity said on thursday that these terrorists were not human. A Ticking Time Blog mentioned it the other day, and I agree with him. The Terrorists were human.

"Sean, yes they were, human beings with flesh and blood just like the rest of us. Latent in each of us is the capacity for horrible evil, and we deceive ourselves to think otherwise. I can’t fathom what must be going through one of these people’s minds, but I do know that the consequences for believing lies can be tragic; this is what these people did, believed the lies of the enemy of our souls, and it cost them their lives and souls, as well as the lives of many innocent people. Barbaric, inhumane, cowardly; all these words only scratch the surface. But evil resides in the human heart—and in that respect, these people were all too human, Sean, all too human."

You have to visit his site.

Again, my prayers go out to all in London, and the families of those in London. We're not afraid.

Stay tuned for more new and great headers supporting London.

Technorati Tags: london, Terrorism, London, London Bomb, london blast, london explosions

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 8, 2005

Writing: Good...and Bad

There are times in my writing "career" when I dislike writing.

Writing can be good, and it can be bad. I don't like writing when it's bad. Not "bad" as in not a good peice of literature, but when it doesn't fulfill it's purpose, or get your point across in the correct tone.

Many times, writing lackes the tone of speech that we take for granted each and every day of our lives. We can come across as having any tone when we're writing.

In a few of my posts, I've come across as heard-hearted and not caring for others and their situations. Those were not my thoughts, nor my purpose in writing. I did not want to portray someone in a bad way nor take little or no heed to their situation. Terrorists are a different story...even though they deserve forgiveness just as much as I do.

It's in these times that I need to be at my finest. Times of testing and times of trials are times to stand tall.

My words that I wrote down did not really reflect Christ. I don't care that the words weren't meant to come across as bad.

So I want to move on. I would ask for you to pray that God will guide my hands as I write these posts. I know I focus on a lot of politics, but I'm not going to hide my belief in Christ to become a bigger blogger.

This site is growing, and so am I. I really hope you enjoy journeying with me as I continue on my mission to serve Christ.So let's move on together and use writing in a good way. 

• 1 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 7, 2005

We Are All Britons Today

We are all Britons today. We all stand with you.

As Captain's Quarters put it:

"On July 7, 2005, let it be known that the world united behind our British brothers and sisters as fellow members of Western Civilization under attack by the forces of tyranny and oppression. We stand with our friends who have suffered a terrible act of war on their civilian population, a cowardly and shameful act that amply demonstrates the depths of depravity of the enemies of freedom and liberty."

We know the fear, the anxiety, the wondering of what will happen next. But that fear will not stay...no...we must move on as friends. We must stand high, and not fall prey to cowardly acts of these terrorists. We must stand high...stand tall...stand brave.

Andrew, we're praying for you. Adrian, we're praying for you. All Britons, we stand with you. We are you.

All Americans stand with you.

We, who have felt your pain, salute you, our friends.

Keep the Union Jack up today!



Posts of Interest:

LaShawn Barber
Michelle Malkin
Andrew
Adrian Warnock
BBC Reporter's Blog
UK Blog Aggregator
Lorie Byrd
Huge Roundup
Jeff Jarvis
BBC Pictures (more coming here)
Britain launches search for bombers

BLAME IRAQ! Yeah...or not. What do you as an Englishman think of these attacks? Are they because of the U.S.? Did we bring them upon you?

No.

You have stood with us as friends to fight this very thing, this evil, of terrorism. You know we are all subject to be attacked.

Your bravery has helped us more than we can imagine. Don't turn on us now.

The Left-wingers response. You have to groan reading this...I'm sorry, but you really do.

Daily Kos making me sick.

Sir, if you didn't notice, those attacks weren't in our streets. I know we're all Britons today, but those were Britain's streets. Not ours. Please tell me where we were attacked today, and I'll agree.

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 7, 2005

Breaking: Terrorists Attack London

Continuing coverage later today...see more here.

"AP--Subways, buses hit across city
At least six explosions across central city during morning rush; two dead, 90 wounded; double-decker bus torn open; people trapped in tunnel near King's Cross; entire subway network, rail lines into city shut down."

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Dateline: Jul. 6, 2005

Let's Be Friends!

Or not.

I haven't gotten into the Natalee Holloway thing yet, but I might as well jump in.

Let's take a look at today's report from Fox News about Arubans vs. Natalee's Mom. I think I can see why they're mad.

A latent but growing resentment here became evident for the first time when more than 200 people, some wrapped in Aruban flags, said they were incensed by statements made by the mother of a missing American teen.

Those assembled outside the colonial courthouse in this Caribbean capital Tuesday night said they fear their tiny island nation is falsely being portrayed as not doing enough to find Natalee Holloway, the Alabama girl who vanished May 30 on a graduation trip with her high school class.

I'd say they're right. Think about it. When you think of Aruba, do you think of a wonderful beach resort safe for you and your family? No. You think of a missing, irresponsible, 18-year-old girl, that is either dead, or is somewhere on this globe doing who-knows-what.

In a brief and tearful statement Tuesday, Beth Holloway Twitty, Natalee's mother, accused Aruba of letting guilty people free.

"Two suspects were released yesterday who were involved in a violent crime against my daughter," she said.

"These criminals are not only being allowed to walk around among the tourists and citizens of Aruba," she said, but there were no limits on where they could go.

The protesters took umbrage with those statements.

"Respect our Dutch laws or go home," read one sign. "Innocent until proven guilty," read another. One suggested the missing girl might not be dead but partying in Brazil or nearby Venezuela.

Innocent until proven guilty. I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, you can't just accuse someone of murdering your daughter with absolutely no evidence (or clear evidence). You are in a foreign country, and you really do have to obey their laws. I understand that you may be under huge stress, but taking it out on the country isn't going to help find your daughter.

The brothers may very well be criminals, and I would support keeping them in the country, just in case. But, there isn't any proof they're guilty, so they must be freed.

There were complaints that some American television coverage unfairly depicted the island, which depends overwhelmingly on tourism, and as being crime- and drug-ridden.

Though poverty is widespread in the Caribbean, Aruba has an unemployment rate of less than 1 percent and one of the higher standards of living. And it has few worries. Tourism and a major refinery bring in the money. Diplomatic and defense needs, such as they are, are provided by the Netherlands.

"Have you been treated badly in Aruba?" asked Ramon Garcia, a burly tourist guide. "We are together with the family of Natalee, but we love Aruba too, man. We don't need these pressures. We are a friendly island."

Orlando Flanigan said his country had given "all out hearts, all out cooperation, everything," to help find Natalee.

"It's time we got some respect back," he said.

That really is the truth. Respect for Aruba has been lost. Aruba has not been potrayed as a very friendly island. Fox has done a decent job, but still have leaned towards making the island out to be rather scary. ABC is the same. CNN portrays it as a very scary place.

In fact, after watching the news the other night, I'd rather not ever visit Aruba. This is going to hurt Aruba, and the press isn't helping very much.

"They are making us look like a banana republic, he said. "We are an educated and cultured people; many of us speak four or five languages."

John Maywether told a growing crowd that Aruba is not an island of criminals.

"We have 96 [prison] cells and 53 percent of them are occupied by non-Arubans," he said.

"We are here to ask that you trust our legal system," he said, recalling that Arubans turned out in large numbers for Natalee after she vanished and that prayers were offered for her safe return in local churches.

Arubans note that local banks raised $20,000 and provided other help to a group of volunteers from Texas, who are still here, could continue their search for the girl.

I didn't know that. That's really interesting. But it does seem weird that 53 percent of those in prison are NON-Arubans. Does that mean criminals like to visit the island? I mean, people from the island may be nice, but what about those attracted to the island? If it's an island where kidnappers hang out, I'm not going.

Still no sign of her. Where could she be?

I'll tell you one thing...why was she not with chaparones?

It's pretty easy to guess that everyone was out partying, she's drunk, and get's picked up. Who knows what happens next?

Maybe she's on a boat somewhere? Partying in Brazil maybe?

I think I'm a bit tired of Natalee's mom though...she throws out accusations almost in a fit of rage.

"YOU DID IT...wait...no...HE DID IT!!!"

I wonder how much money she's getting from this? (Sorry, but really...)

We pray they find Natalee, as slim as the chances are of that.

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Page 2 of 4
Last Page | Next Page