Things are back to "normal" at the radio station, Kingdom FM Christian Radio .
Sharathon 2007 is history.
I'm tired.
I'll post a real article tomorrow.
Thanks for your prayers.
Listen in...you'll like it if you like middle-of-the-road, inspirational and soft praise-and-worship music and strong Bible studies.
See you tomorrow.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
SHARATHON 2007
Next week is our Sharathon 2007 at the Christian Radio station where I am the Production Director. (WJYO 91.5 fm Kingdom FM)
Each year we take a few days to ask listeners to make Faith Promises to the station to raise the operations funds for the year.
If you would like to become a listener, you can, no matter where you live. Simply go to www.kingdom.fm and click on listen live.
If you would like to contribute to the cause, the toll free number to call is 1-800-635-2122, or you can just send a check to Kingdom FM, P.O. Box 61721, Fort Myers, Florida 33906.
The Sharathon will go from 6:00 AM until 6:00 PM Eastern Time Tuesday, March 27 through Friday, March 30.
We do a nice mix of great Bible teaching programs, Inspirational and soft praise-and-worship music.
Pray for us, as this has not been a banner year for listener support (not a BAD year, just not as good as it could (should?) have been).
FYI: I do an on-air shift from 9:00 AM until Noon, Monday thru Friday...just in case you wanted to hear what I sound like, for some odd reason or another.
As I say every day when I sign off, "Have a great day! Make it a Christ-filled Day, and I'll see you here tomorrow morning. But if I don't see you here...I'll see you over there."
Each year we take a few days to ask listeners to make Faith Promises to the station to raise the operations funds for the year.
If you would like to become a listener, you can, no matter where you live. Simply go to www.kingdom.fm and click on listen live.
If you would like to contribute to the cause, the toll free number to call is 1-800-635-2122, or you can just send a check to Kingdom FM, P.O. Box 61721, Fort Myers, Florida 33906.
The Sharathon will go from 6:00 AM until 6:00 PM Eastern Time Tuesday, March 27 through Friday, March 30.
We do a nice mix of great Bible teaching programs, Inspirational and soft praise-and-worship music.
Pray for us, as this has not been a banner year for listener support (not a BAD year, just not as good as it could (should?) have been).
FYI: I do an on-air shift from 9:00 AM until Noon, Monday thru Friday...just in case you wanted to hear what I sound like, for some odd reason or another.
As I say every day when I sign off, "Have a great day! Make it a Christ-filled Day, and I'll see you here tomorrow morning. But if I don't see you here...I'll see you over there."
Monday, March 19, 2007
IS CHANGE IN THE AIR?
Let's say you are a Calvinist and you are reading this post.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but for, the sake of argument, let's say that it is.
What would it take to cause you to change your Calvinist views?
Let's say you are an Arminianist and you are reading this post.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that it it.
What would it take to cause you to change your Arminian views?
I dare say either or both of you would quickly change your views as soon as someone showed you one or more Scriptures that made the case for the other side...right?
Or not?
Fact is, neither a died-in-the-wool Calvinist or a died-in-the-wool Arminianist is likely to change, because the Scripture can be used to "prove" either point of view.
The same can be said for any theological stance to which one holds, because, after much consideration, each of us thinks he/she is correct.
If, on the other hand, you do not think you are correct in the stance you take, why do you take it?
Truth is, Scripture is not a dissertation on how or why God does what He does or saves whom He saves.
It is His revelation of His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
As long as we are bound to concerning ourselves with the "how" and the "why," we will miss the "Who."
The "Who" is Jesus.
I have heard incessant arguments for both sides and even for some dozens of sides on the periphery.
Not a single one of them has been persuasive.
Most of them end with a sort of, "Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right," attitude.
To which I reply: No, I can't.
Which reply either calls into question my intelligence, or the motive(s) of the questioner.
On the very day that Christians decide to major on the major (who is only Jesus), we will cease our bickering and will begin to attract the world to the One who came to save them.
As proof of this stance I offer John 13:35: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
And: John 17: 20 & 21: (20) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
Now that I have quoted some Scripture supporting my stance, have I convinced you to adopt the same stance?
Interesting.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but for, the sake of argument, let's say that it is.
What would it take to cause you to change your Calvinist views?
Let's say you are an Arminianist and you are reading this post.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that it it.
What would it take to cause you to change your Arminian views?
I dare say either or both of you would quickly change your views as soon as someone showed you one or more Scriptures that made the case for the other side...right?
Or not?
Fact is, neither a died-in-the-wool Calvinist or a died-in-the-wool Arminianist is likely to change, because the Scripture can be used to "prove" either point of view.
The same can be said for any theological stance to which one holds, because, after much consideration, each of us thinks he/she is correct.
If, on the other hand, you do not think you are correct in the stance you take, why do you take it?
Truth is, Scripture is not a dissertation on how or why God does what He does or saves whom He saves.
It is His revelation of His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
As long as we are bound to concerning ourselves with the "how" and the "why," we will miss the "Who."
The "Who" is Jesus.
I have heard incessant arguments for both sides and even for some dozens of sides on the periphery.
Not a single one of them has been persuasive.
Most of them end with a sort of, "Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right," attitude.
To which I reply: No, I can't.
Which reply either calls into question my intelligence, or the motive(s) of the questioner.
On the very day that Christians decide to major on the major (who is only Jesus), we will cease our bickering and will begin to attract the world to the One who came to save them.
As proof of this stance I offer John 13:35: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
And: John 17: 20 & 21: (20) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
Now that I have quoted some Scripture supporting my stance, have I convinced you to adopt the same stance?
Interesting.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
JUDGE FOR YOURSELF
Should the Attorney General, Alterto Gonzales, be fired or asked to resign?
That is, and MUST be, 100% up to the President and Congress has NO RIGHT to even bring the subject up!
But you think they must have the right, because you believe the news.
President William Jefferson Clinton fired 93 AGs in ONE DAY.
He kept on Janet Reno in the face of the same kind of controversy.
The press reported, but gave almost no commentary on the events.
The President fires a few AGs and the press treats it like a scandal (they even call it that and you believe it is a scandal because your favorite newscaster said so), saying it was "politically motivated."
One fired AG says he was fired because "he wouldn't play ball."
RIGHT!!!!
That's why people get fired.
My boss would fire me if I did not play ball (he has told me so).
Your boss would fire you if you did not play ball.
If you were (or are) a boss, you would fire an employee who did not play ball.
And the AGs work for the President.
He is their boss, as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, if that counts for anything.
But you believe the Mainstream Press.
You will allow the MSP to fry AG, Alberto Gonzales.
You will not object to your Congressman.
You will not write or call.
You are too pussyfooted to either care or to do anything about it.
This is all for one reason, and one reason only: to put EVERY move George W. Bush makes in a bad light.
And you are playing right into their hands.
I heard an interview of an "expert" this very morning who was asked by the interviewer, with that "what I'm about to ask demand a certain respose" tone to his voice, "Is America safer today than we were before 9/11?"
The answer was 100% predictable: NO.
I'm certain that is because of all the attacks on america carried out by terroritsts since 9/11.
I'm certain that is because of the fear you and I wake up with every day, as we head out to our jobs and conduct our daily lives.
Now the truth is WE ARE SAFER NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE 9/11, but you don't believe that, because you believe your favorite news reporter.
Take Valerie Plame (please).
Valerie Plame was NOT outed by Robert Novak or any body else...she was never a lawfully covert agent.
She testified that she was covert.
Imagine that!
A covert agent who drives to work in a family car every day, drops her kids off at school and then drives to the CIA offices!
That's some kinda covert!
But her testimony was that she had been trained to know when she was being followed.
Oh, wow! That makes sense.
Truth is, her testimony before the committe was false...a lie...get it? She lied under oath!
Yes she did!
She was, is and always will be a pretty faced, blond liar (a liar being defined as one who does not tell the truth).
But was that pointed out by the MSP?
If you watched any of the questioning of Valerie Plame before Congress, you know that EVERY TIME a question was asked that might yield an opposite result, the question was either cut off or ridiculed by members of the panel who had a different niew.
Valerie Plame said she lost her career because of the Bush administration.
Now you believe that, because you believe your favorite news reporter.
But she was not "outed" by the Bush administration, she was not "outed" at all, because only a lawfully covert agent can be "outed."
But you think she was a covert agent, because you believe the news.
Fact is, the first person to bring up her name as a CIA employee (not a covert agent, 'cause she wasn't one), was Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of State. Check out this Newsweek link.
But how many times did you hear his name come up in the hearings yesterday?
Answer: 0
You need to realize that the major network news organizations are not at all interested in giving you all the facts of a case, they are interested in making you believe a certain thing that fits what they, as a group, want accomplished.
And they are being successful at making you believe what they tell you because you do not write or call them and tell them how much you wish they would present BOTH SIDES of a story factually, and save the commentary for commentators.
Same goes for certain lawmakers.
They are not interested in the good of the country, bringing unity to the country, defending the country...they are interested in, and only in, their own power.
"Sure are they all...all honorable men."
Yeah, right.
But you believe they are, because they bluster and huff and puff when the truth about them is brought up.
But their actions go on, just the same.
And you fall for their lies and the lies of the Mainstream Press.
Or do you?
That is, and MUST be, 100% up to the President and Congress has NO RIGHT to even bring the subject up!
But you think they must have the right, because you believe the news.
President William Jefferson Clinton fired 93 AGs in ONE DAY.
He kept on Janet Reno in the face of the same kind of controversy.
The press reported, but gave almost no commentary on the events.
The President fires a few AGs and the press treats it like a scandal (they even call it that and you believe it is a scandal because your favorite newscaster said so), saying it was "politically motivated."
One fired AG says he was fired because "he wouldn't play ball."
RIGHT!!!!
That's why people get fired.
My boss would fire me if I did not play ball (he has told me so).
Your boss would fire you if you did not play ball.
If you were (or are) a boss, you would fire an employee who did not play ball.
And the AGs work for the President.
He is their boss, as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, if that counts for anything.
But you believe the Mainstream Press.
You will allow the MSP to fry AG, Alberto Gonzales.
You will not object to your Congressman.
You will not write or call.
You are too pussyfooted to either care or to do anything about it.
This is all for one reason, and one reason only: to put EVERY move George W. Bush makes in a bad light.
And you are playing right into their hands.
I heard an interview of an "expert" this very morning who was asked by the interviewer, with that "what I'm about to ask demand a certain respose" tone to his voice, "Is America safer today than we were before 9/11?"
The answer was 100% predictable: NO.
I'm certain that is because of all the attacks on america carried out by terroritsts since 9/11.
I'm certain that is because of the fear you and I wake up with every day, as we head out to our jobs and conduct our daily lives.
Now the truth is WE ARE SAFER NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE 9/11, but you don't believe that, because you believe your favorite news reporter.
Take Valerie Plame (please).
Valerie Plame was NOT outed by Robert Novak or any body else...she was never a lawfully covert agent.
She testified that she was covert.
Imagine that!
A covert agent who drives to work in a family car every day, drops her kids off at school and then drives to the CIA offices!
That's some kinda covert!
But her testimony was that she had been trained to know when she was being followed.
Oh, wow! That makes sense.
Truth is, her testimony before the committe was false...a lie...get it? She lied under oath!
Yes she did!
She was, is and always will be a pretty faced, blond liar (a liar being defined as one who does not tell the truth).
But was that pointed out by the MSP?
If you watched any of the questioning of Valerie Plame before Congress, you know that EVERY TIME a question was asked that might yield an opposite result, the question was either cut off or ridiculed by members of the panel who had a different niew.
Valerie Plame said she lost her career because of the Bush administration.
Now you believe that, because you believe your favorite news reporter.
But she was not "outed" by the Bush administration, she was not "outed" at all, because only a lawfully covert agent can be "outed."
But you think she was a covert agent, because you believe the news.
Fact is, the first person to bring up her name as a CIA employee (not a covert agent, 'cause she wasn't one), was Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of State. Check out this Newsweek link.
But how many times did you hear his name come up in the hearings yesterday?
Answer: 0
You need to realize that the major network news organizations are not at all interested in giving you all the facts of a case, they are interested in making you believe a certain thing that fits what they, as a group, want accomplished.
And they are being successful at making you believe what they tell you because you do not write or call them and tell them how much you wish they would present BOTH SIDES of a story factually, and save the commentary for commentators.
Same goes for certain lawmakers.
They are not interested in the good of the country, bringing unity to the country, defending the country...they are interested in, and only in, their own power.
"Sure are they all...all honorable men."
Yeah, right.
But you believe they are, because they bluster and huff and puff when the truth about them is brought up.
But their actions go on, just the same.
And you fall for their lies and the lies of the Mainstream Press.
Or do you?
Friday, March 16, 2007
UNDERCOVER
If you read this far in this post, you do thereby pledge not to reveal to another soul the veracity of same.
I am a covert operative in S.W.I.N.E.
Each day I drop my charges off at their place of erudition and go to my office at the S.W.I.N.E. headquarters.
Being a highly trained operative, skilled in all areas and activities of the S.W.I.N.E. organization, I know that I have never been followed to my office, even though I use public thoroughfares to get there.
(There was the city bus thing, but that's another story.)
If I had been followed, it would indicate that someone knew I was a covert agent (else why would they be following me?), and I would no longer be covert.
Now, the Congressional bill regarding the outing of covert agents in S.W.I.N.E. would have required that whoever discovered that I was covert would have to be indicted on charges of outing a covert agent thereby transforming me from a covert agent to an overt agent, something that no agent of S.W.I.N.E. would want to be.
Somehow, I would have to get over overtness so that I could become covered with covertness (or some other nasty substance).
Now, when testifying before a Congressional committee regarding the outing (or overting)of a covert agent, the person who actually framed the law testified that I was not covert under the law, a sure indication that there is considerable confusion about the relationship(s) between overt-and-covert-ness.
The Committee Chairman then became properly indignant (something I know a great deal about which), crying out, "Are you telling me that Joe was NOT covert? Don't actually answer the question, because I don't want to hear what the answer actually is, I just want to be able to ask the question with an incredulous tone to my voice."
"Well, Sir," she responded, "under the law..."
He interrupted, "Don't bring the law into this. Why, we are actual law writers! What possible relevance could the law have in a case like this? We are not interested in the actual facts of this non-case, we are only interested in posturing and puffing on behalf of the American people."
"But be assured," he continued, "We intend to prosecute this issue to the fullest extent of the law!"
She tried to point out to him that the law didn't have a very full extent, but he was having none of it.
Having observed these proceedings, I left the court room (uh...make that the committee room) in my usual huff and rejoined my responsibilities in my S.W.I.N.E. office. In an overtly covert fashion, of course.
NOTE FOR THE UNITITIATED: S.W.I.N.E stands for Seniors Wildlly Indignant about Nearly Everything.
If you have been initiated, please disregard this explanitory note.
NOTE 2: There is no way to describe the penalties that may or may not be invoked should you give in to the temptation to reveal the contents of this covert post to any other person, living or dead.
I am a covert operative in S.W.I.N.E.
Each day I drop my charges off at their place of erudition and go to my office at the S.W.I.N.E. headquarters.
Being a highly trained operative, skilled in all areas and activities of the S.W.I.N.E. organization, I know that I have never been followed to my office, even though I use public thoroughfares to get there.
(There was the city bus thing, but that's another story.)
If I had been followed, it would indicate that someone knew I was a covert agent (else why would they be following me?), and I would no longer be covert.
Now, the Congressional bill regarding the outing of covert agents in S.W.I.N.E. would have required that whoever discovered that I was covert would have to be indicted on charges of outing a covert agent thereby transforming me from a covert agent to an overt agent, something that no agent of S.W.I.N.E. would want to be.
Somehow, I would have to get over overtness so that I could become covered with covertness (or some other nasty substance).
Now, when testifying before a Congressional committee regarding the outing (or overting)of a covert agent, the person who actually framed the law testified that I was not covert under the law, a sure indication that there is considerable confusion about the relationship(s) between overt-and-covert-ness.
The Committee Chairman then became properly indignant (something I know a great deal about which), crying out, "Are you telling me that Joe was NOT covert? Don't actually answer the question, because I don't want to hear what the answer actually is, I just want to be able to ask the question with an incredulous tone to my voice."
"Well, Sir," she responded, "under the law..."
He interrupted, "Don't bring the law into this. Why, we are actual law writers! What possible relevance could the law have in a case like this? We are not interested in the actual facts of this non-case, we are only interested in posturing and puffing on behalf of the American people."
"But be assured," he continued, "We intend to prosecute this issue to the fullest extent of the law!"
She tried to point out to him that the law didn't have a very full extent, but he was having none of it.
Having observed these proceedings, I left the court room (uh...make that the committee room) in my usual huff and rejoined my responsibilities in my S.W.I.N.E. office. In an overtly covert fashion, of course.
NOTE FOR THE UNITITIATED: S.W.I.N.E stands for Seniors Wildlly Indignant about Nearly Everything.
If you have been initiated, please disregard this explanitory note.
NOTE 2: There is no way to describe the penalties that may or may not be invoked should you give in to the temptation to reveal the contents of this covert post to any other person, living or dead.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
PHONIES
Dear blog reader,
Do you have any idea how utterly stupid the Congress and Senate of the United States of America think you are?
They think you are far to stupid to realize that when President William Jefferson Clinton fired 93 Attorney's General it was OK, because he did it early in his administration and without any prior investigation, but President George W. Bush fires 8 after years of consideration and investigation and that's somehow bad.
They really and truely think you are that stupid.
How does it make you feel to know that they think you are that stupid?
It makes me turbochargedly furious that they think I'm that stupid.
They're wrong, aren't they?
You are not really that stupid are you?
Do you have any idea how utterly stupid the Congress and Senate of the United States of America think you are?
They think you are far to stupid to realize that when President William Jefferson Clinton fired 93 Attorney's General it was OK, because he did it early in his administration and without any prior investigation, but President George W. Bush fires 8 after years of consideration and investigation and that's somehow bad.
They really and truely think you are that stupid.
How does it make you feel to know that they think you are that stupid?
It makes me turbochargedly furious that they think I'm that stupid.
They're wrong, aren't they?
You are not really that stupid are you?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
INTERESTING
I have no idea how true anything in this video really is, but it does give reason for thought and is worth watching.
(I can't make it link...I guess you'll have to copy it and paste it in your URL box. I don't have one of those $1,000.00 computers from 2023 - which comment you will understand after watching the video-.)
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
(I can't make it link...I guess you'll have to copy it and paste it in your URL box. I don't have one of those $1,000.00 computers from 2023 - which comment you will understand after watching the video-.)
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MORE OF MY PUGS
Charlie looks most intelligent when he is nipping at his bottle. He and Zeek are very close. Even closer than in the picture.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
SATURDAY SILLINESS
Everything you see on TV is, of course, true.
Today I was watching the local Fox TV channel.
The announcer said, "Fox 4 is in your corner!"
I looked im my corner.
They weren't there.
Today I was watching the local Fox TV channel.
The announcer said, "Fox 4 is in your corner!"
I looked im my corner.
They weren't there.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
GIVE WHAT?
Most Christians' favorite hymn really goes:
Some to Jesus I surrender,
Some to Him I freely give.
I will sometimes love and trust Him
In His presence frequently live.
I surrender some.
I surrender some.
Some to Thee my Blessed Savior
I surrender some.
You might not have noticed.
Christians often tend to be inconsistant.
They are even inconsistant in recognizing their inconsistancy.
Let me illustrate.
A neighbor stopped in at my house the other day to visit.
He went into my laundry room where I had a washer and dryer.
"Hey!" he proclaimed. "I'm feeling very alturistic today!
"I'd like to give you this really nice washer and dryer set!"
"Uh..." I was somewhat perplexed.
"How can you give me that washer and dryer set? It belongs to me already!"
"Yeah!" he answered, "But I just feel like I should give you something. You've done a lot for me and I want to return the favor.
"It's settled. I'm giving you this washer and dryer."
Now I know that you are smarter than the average blog reader.
You understand how silly that is.
Do you understand how it illstrates one of the most flagrant inconsistancies in most Christians' lives?
God created and owns the entire universe...everything...all of it. It's His. He holds the deed.
My washer and dryer is His.
My home is His.
My car is His.
My life is His.
My children are His.
My paycheck is His.
Everything I am, everything I "have" is His.
His Word teaches me that truth without equivocation.
He absolutely, positively owns it all.
Not philosophically...actually.
How can I "give back to Him" something that is already His?
"Nothing in my hand I bring..."
One of my church members said to me, "If every member of our church would just tithe, we wouldn't have so many money worries."
I answered, "If every member of our church would just learn New Testament giving, God wouldn't have to settle for only 10%.
Many Christians are willing to fight for the concept of tithing.
Very, very few are willing to give their all to Him.
Even though He gave His all for us.
True New Testament giving requires that we recognize that everything is His...100%.
He demands it all.
Any other so-called "New Testament" teaching about giving is false teaching.
Some to Jesus I surrender,
Some to Him I freely give.
I will sometimes love and trust Him
In His presence frequently live.
I surrender some.
I surrender some.
Some to Thee my Blessed Savior
I surrender some.
You might not have noticed.
Christians often tend to be inconsistant.
They are even inconsistant in recognizing their inconsistancy.
Let me illustrate.
A neighbor stopped in at my house the other day to visit.
He went into my laundry room where I had a washer and dryer.
"Hey!" he proclaimed. "I'm feeling very alturistic today!
"I'd like to give you this really nice washer and dryer set!"
"Uh..." I was somewhat perplexed.
"How can you give me that washer and dryer set? It belongs to me already!"
"Yeah!" he answered, "But I just feel like I should give you something. You've done a lot for me and I want to return the favor.
"It's settled. I'm giving you this washer and dryer."
Now I know that you are smarter than the average blog reader.
You understand how silly that is.
Do you understand how it illstrates one of the most flagrant inconsistancies in most Christians' lives?
God created and owns the entire universe...everything...all of it. It's His. He holds the deed.
My washer and dryer is His.
My home is His.
My car is His.
My life is His.
My children are His.
My paycheck is His.
Everything I am, everything I "have" is His.
His Word teaches me that truth without equivocation.
He absolutely, positively owns it all.
Not philosophically...actually.
How can I "give back to Him" something that is already His?
"Nothing in my hand I bring..."
One of my church members said to me, "If every member of our church would just tithe, we wouldn't have so many money worries."
I answered, "If every member of our church would just learn New Testament giving, God wouldn't have to settle for only 10%.
Many Christians are willing to fight for the concept of tithing.
Very, very few are willing to give their all to Him.
Even though He gave His all for us.
True New Testament giving requires that we recognize that everything is His...100%.
He demands it all.
Any other so-called "New Testament" teaching about giving is false teaching.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
NOT A PART OF THE PLATFORM
A friend of mine sent me this little story.
I thought I would pass it on to you.
I was right.
I would.
A game warden in central Florida recently stopped a Florida cracker, who was leaving a lake well known for its good fishing, with two ice chests of fish, .
The game warden asked the man, "Do you have a license to catch those fish?"
"Naw, my friend, I ain't got no license. These here are my pet fish."
"Pet fish?"
"Yep. Every night I take these fish down to the river and let 'em swim 'round for a while. Then I whistle and they jump right back into this ice chest and I take 'em home."
"That's a bunch of bull! Fish can't do that!"
The cracker looked at the game warden for a moment and then said, "It's the truth. I'll show you. It really works."
"Okay, I've GOT to see this!"
The cracker poured the fish into the river and stood and waited.
After several minutes, the game warden turned to him and said,"Well?"
"Well, what?" said the cracker.
"When are you going to call them back?"
"Call who back?"
"The FISH!"
"What fish?"
We in Florida may not be as smart as some, but we ain't as dumb as most. You smart ones have a good day!
I thought I would pass it on to you.
I was right.
I would.
A game warden in central Florida recently stopped a Florida cracker, who was leaving a lake well known for its good fishing, with two ice chests of fish, .
The game warden asked the man, "Do you have a license to catch those fish?"
"Naw, my friend, I ain't got no license. These here are my pet fish."
"Pet fish?"
"Yep. Every night I take these fish down to the river and let 'em swim 'round for a while. Then I whistle and they jump right back into this ice chest and I take 'em home."
"That's a bunch of bull! Fish can't do that!"
The cracker looked at the game warden for a moment and then said, "It's the truth. I'll show you. It really works."
"Okay, I've GOT to see this!"
The cracker poured the fish into the river and stood and waited.
After several minutes, the game warden turned to him and said,"Well?"
"Well, what?" said the cracker.
"When are you going to call them back?"
"Call who back?"
"The FISH!"
"What fish?"
We in Florida may not be as smart as some, but we ain't as dumb as most. You smart ones have a good day!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
THE PLATFORM PART 6
Here it is!
The final duty of government as outlined in the preamble of our Constitution.
It is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Liberty!
People have died for it.
It is the deepest earthly yearning of the human heart.
Cage an animal if you must, but don't cage a human being.
The writing on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." recognizes the depth of the seat of freedom in the human breast.
What is it that so profoundly settles itself in the soul of man, this thing called "liberty?"
Cliches: Freedom isn't free. Freedom isn't license. Freedom isn't absolute. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You're not free to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater.
True.
So what is it?
Freedom is the ability to think and move without restriction but with enormous responsibility.
The responsibility that comes with freedom is the responsibility to act with the good of someone or something bigger than self in mind.
That's not easy.
Most of us live by the motto: I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, how I want it and I want it right now.
In order to be free we must get over the "I" trouble.
For instance traffic lights.
I have the power to not stop at a red light.
By agreement with society, I have relinquished the right to not stop at a red light in order to enjoy the freedom of driving where I want to go safely.
So in order to enjoy some liberties, one must give up certain freedoms.
There must always be a balancing act, or else freedom would become anarchy, which would become chaos.
And so, we the people established a government charged with the responsibility of securing our very liberty.
To entrust a government with our liberty, and then to tell that government to govern us, is so close to a contradiction-in-terms that it is scary.
And so, we call it a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
As long as the people remain active in governance, it will succeed.
When the people refuse to be involved, the government will, because of the nature of mankind and its propensity for power, exert undue authority and will become corrupt, then dictatorial, then repressive.
If I am President, my administration will strive to secure those blessings of liberty for us, for our children and for our children's children.
But then If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.
The final duty of government as outlined in the preamble of our Constitution.
It is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Liberty!
People have died for it.
It is the deepest earthly yearning of the human heart.
Cage an animal if you must, but don't cage a human being.
The writing on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." recognizes the depth of the seat of freedom in the human breast.
What is it that so profoundly settles itself in the soul of man, this thing called "liberty?"
Cliches: Freedom isn't free. Freedom isn't license. Freedom isn't absolute. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You're not free to yell, "fire!" in a crowded theater.
True.
So what is it?
Freedom is the ability to think and move without restriction but with enormous responsibility.
The responsibility that comes with freedom is the responsibility to act with the good of someone or something bigger than self in mind.
That's not easy.
Most of us live by the motto: I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, how I want it and I want it right now.
In order to be free we must get over the "I" trouble.
For instance traffic lights.
I have the power to not stop at a red light.
By agreement with society, I have relinquished the right to not stop at a red light in order to enjoy the freedom of driving where I want to go safely.
So in order to enjoy some liberties, one must give up certain freedoms.
There must always be a balancing act, or else freedom would become anarchy, which would become chaos.
And so, we the people established a government charged with the responsibility of securing our very liberty.
To entrust a government with our liberty, and then to tell that government to govern us, is so close to a contradiction-in-terms that it is scary.
And so, we call it a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
As long as the people remain active in governance, it will succeed.
When the people refuse to be involved, the government will, because of the nature of mankind and its propensity for power, exert undue authority and will become corrupt, then dictatorial, then repressive.
If I am President, my administration will strive to secure those blessings of liberty for us, for our children and for our children's children.
But then If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.
Friday, March 02, 2007
THE NEWT WORLD ORDER
Newt Gingrich is one of my favorite politicians.
I like Newt because he and I share similar social, governmental, and family values.
He is contemplating running against me and others for the Presidency.
Sadly, he does not have a breath of a chance, not because he isn't the best man for the job. I think he IS the best man for the job (next to me, of course).
He doesn't have a chance because the mainstream press will fry him for breakfast meat.
Newt is the architech of the Republican Contract with America, with which I fully agreed.
This is a transcript of a section of a Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire.
Apparently it is causing a firestorm.
==============
NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons.
And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.
Let me give you two examples.
When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.
But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.
And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.
This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.
I think we should pay attention to this speech.
After something dire happens, it will be too late.
Let's not let that happen.
I like Newt because he and I share similar social, governmental, and family values.
He is contemplating running against me and others for the Presidency.
Sadly, he does not have a breath of a chance, not because he isn't the best man for the job. I think he IS the best man for the job (next to me, of course).
He doesn't have a chance because the mainstream press will fry him for breakfast meat.
Newt is the architech of the Republican Contract with America, with which I fully agreed.
This is a transcript of a section of a Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire.
Apparently it is causing a firestorm.
==============
NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons.
And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.
Let me give you two examples.
When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.
But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.
And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.
This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.
I think we should pay attention to this speech.
After something dire happens, it will be too late.
Let's not let that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
