Roundup

Just finished another Kairos Prison Ministry weekend.  Exhausting but always joyful.  My role was pretty easy this time, just playing guitar and giving a 20 min. talk about the church and how they fit in it.  Blessings and answered prayers all around.

I thought these comments by other volunteers summarized things nicely:

[The prisoners] experienced Love, many for the first time in their life; they saw Hope, where none had existed before; and, they experienced Christ, who they may have known about but never experienced.

Final score:   God 42     Satan 0

The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls by Al Mohler — He analyzes an article that appeared, surprisingly enough, in The Economist, which outlined the horrors of over 100 million “missing” girls due to abortion, infanticide or neglect.  Aside from the tragedy of killing females for the sole reason of their gender, the impact on society is enormous.  Please read it all.

Dems look to health vote without abortion foes — the title says it all.  As I’ve been pointing out, they could have had the health care bill completed long ago, but that wasn’t good enough.  They are willing to risk it all to ensure that they get taxpayer-funded abortions.

The Reagan / Obama debate — nicely done.

17 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Just hearing Reagan’s voice makes me sick. That man was one of the world’s biggest terrorists. For the misery he caused in Central America, and his contribution to the destabilisation of Southern Africa in the 1980s his name should be mentioned along with those other great respecters of human life, Stalin, Hitler, Verwoerd, Mugabe, Begin etc. Instead he is revered as the man who kept Communism at bay. Well whoop-tee-do, so did Osama Bin Laden. Some day I might tell you how I really feel about Reagan. :-)

    • Just so you know, there is a way to express a dissenting opinion about someone without comparing them to Hitler. Like LoneWolfArcher said, people will take you less seriously now.

      • Oh I’m devastated. You guys lose no time in comparing every evolutionist / socialist / liberal (throw in whatever adjective you like, or don’t like, including your current president) that you have no time for to Hitler, and no doubt praise Glen Beck for doing the same thing with his swastika hammer & sickle routine.

        Ok so he wasn’t as bad as Hitler and Stalin. Neither were any of the other guys I mentioned, although they all are, or were, murderous thugs, just like dear Ronald.

      • No doubt every leader will have to give an account for their actions before God, but I still think it is a logical fallacy to compare people who wage unpopular or even wrong foreign policy with those who are out to commit genocide. I don’t buy the war == terrorism idea, even if the war is wrongheaded.

      • Point taken. I just wish that commenters here in general would follow that same advice. And thank you for a reasonable response; the other reply to my above post is typical of the intellectual level encountered here much of the time.

        Look, there are definitions of terrorism, which don’t get discussed very often, because it is uncomfortable to do so. You want to exclude people in uniform, but at the same time you want to talk about terrorist states (that sort of talk started with Reagan remember). By your own definitions many of your country’s actions can be described as terrorism. But call any US president a terrorist (except, apparently, the incumbent) and people wring their hands and assume you must be an American hating commie. Instead of a discussion around the issue you get responses like: Wow, just…wow” The unspoken definition of terrorism then becomes “what you do to us” but if we do it to you, it’s ok, because we are all nice regular folks when we’re at home, who eat apple pie and pray to Jesus. And who cares if these things are happening in some God forsaken place that most of your countrymen would be hard-pressed to find on a map.

        I am a citizen of two countries, both of whom have horrendous records of injustice. I understand why many people hate the British, and I also understand that as a white South African, trust will have to be earned back.

        But I’m baffled by the average US citizen’s incredulence in the face of the question: “Why do so many people hate us?” You then make up the answers you want to hear, such as “they hate our way of life” or “they’re jealous of our success”.

      • “Why do so many people hate us?” You then make up the answers you want to hear, such as “they hate our way of life” or “they’re jealous of our success”.

        You forgot, “We saved the world twice (three times if you include the Cold War) with the sacrifice of countless lives and on our nickel and even helped them rebuild the 2nd time. Oh, and we continue to protect much of the world.”

        Whether those are also in our self-interest is irrelevant. The ingratitude of those saved is telling.

      • Neil, I would never seek to minimise the sacrifices made by everyone who fought in the world wars. You guys had the worst of D-Day too.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “the ingratitude of those saved” in the context of victims of your various wars on terror that began with Reagan in the 80s. Are the Libyans you bombed supposed to say “oh well we can overlook this, if it wasn’t for these guys we’d be speaking German” ? And in what way is a Palestinian being attacked by American made gunships supposed to express his gratitude for the way his world was re-shaped after WW2? Every time there’s a glimmer of hope of a move towards the solution that is staring everyone in the face you use your veto in the UN.

        Your contributions to the world wars were immense, and in many ways you do deserve the lasting respect of the rest of the world. But it didn’t buy you the right to remake the world in your image and you are not making the world safer by doing so.

      • I also would never want to overlook the US contribution to WWI and WWII, but that contribution was matched and surpassed in proportion to population by many other countries who contributed to the breaking point. The Canadian military effort was limited only by the amount of people we could get on boats.

        three times if you include the Cold War

        I don’t count it. You were willing participants in it, were closer to destroying the world than saving it, and the physical remnants of the cold war are part of what is still a huge risk to the world today. You didn’t save the world from communism. It collapsed under the pressure of its own ideals, and it always will.

      • “You didn’t save the world from communism. It collapsed under the pressure of its own ideals, and it always will.”

        Of course. Everyone knew that, even the Communists, which is why everyone was predicting it in the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s and 80′s and no one was surprised when it happened. And Russia would have totally stopped in Afghanistan even if they hadn’t met such resistance there.

        /sarcasm

    • That article claims that the suicide rate in Quebec is 4% per year for men. That’s one in 20, every year. If that was the case, and assuming the stats are for men over 18, that would mean that 80% of all men kill themselves before the age of 60.

      Pretty much the rest of the article is BS as well. It looks like they have taken statistics from certain years in small native Indian reserves, which have extremely high substance abuse and suicide rates, and extrapolated them out to the province’s population.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s