When I wrote my first post about the more things change, it was concieved as a one time thing. But as I continue to do some reading and listening to the issues that are being covered today, and how they are being covered, the idea keeps calling me. So I am thinking of making it a semi-regular feature at the Spade. I hope you all enjoy it!

This entry of  The More Things Change comes from a book that I am currently reading, The News Manipulators by Reed Irvine, Joseph C. Goulden, and Cliff Kincaid. They are the founders and driving forces behind the Accuracy in Media (AIM) watchdog group and this particular piece was originally written on June 5, 1992 and is found on pages 138-140 in their book.

     "On the eve of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, The Washington Post punched a hole in the global warming balloon with an excellent article by Boyce Rensberger pointing out that the alarmist claims that we are going to fry if we don't curb the emissions of greenhouse gases are not supported by empirical evidence. Rensberger pointed out that the climate scientists don't differ about what the data show. They agree that there is a grenhouse effect produced by the earth's atmosphere that has been keeping the planet warm for billions of years. They agree that some of the gases which contribute to this effect, notably carbon dioxide, have increased since the industrial revolution began some 200 years ago.
     They also agree that the increase in the earth's mean surface temperature over the last hundred years of about one degree Fahrenheit is within the range of normal climate variability, but they then divide into two groups. One group believes that the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not to natural causes. They cite the increase in the percentage of the carbon dioxide component of the atmosphere from about .00028 percent in 1800 to about .00036 percent today, warning that if the present rate of increase continues, it will lead to a heating of the globe unprecedented in human history."

     "The netwoks prefer Michael Oppenheimer, the scientific spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund. Oppenheimer has been all over the tube lately ladling out panic-promoting misinformation. On ABC's This Week With David Brinkley he said "there's no question" about the long term warming trend continuing. He cited a White House report that said that there is a consensus among a broad range of scientists that the build-up of greenhouse gases will lead to a warming of the earth in the range of three degrees to eight degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Oppenheimer said, "That would make the earth warmer than at any time in the history of the human species...That's a threat we need to act on now."
     The same day, Resenberger in the Washintgon Post reported that climate scientists are divided into those who want immediate action to curb greenhouse gases and those who don't. He said, "Most of the scientists who specialize in the subject still can't figure out whether anything unusual is actually happening to Earth's climate...Scientists generally agree that it has been getting warmer over the last hundred years, but the average rate of change is no greater than in centuries past, and there is no consensus that human activity is the cause. And while there is no doubt that continued emissions of 'greenhouse gases' tend to aid warming, it is not clear that cutting back on emissions could do much to stop a natural trend, if that is what is happening."
     Dr. Fred Singer, a scientist who opposes panicky action, says the White House paper cited by Oppenhiemer is a misrepresentation of the 1990 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This report observed that the future warming rate could accelerate and increase by as much as 5 degrees by the year 2100, but it did not claim that there was any consensus that this would occur. The IPCC report said: "It is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available."
     Why was Fred Singer allowed only a few seconds in the taped introductory segment of the Brinkley show while people like Michael Oppenheimer and his think-alike, Sen. Albert Gore, are featured guests? Rensbereger supplied this answer, "They are the most visible because many are backed by large, activist organizations and because the news media traditionally give alarm calls prominence."
     Tom Murphy, the CapCities/ABC chairman, claims that ABC wants to give the public all the facts. He has said, "We would like to think we are discussing all these major issues of our time with all the scientific community, and we're tryin to do the best we can." Try a little harder, Tom. You can do a lot better."

Change a few names and dates, and the debate hasn't changed a whole lot. Only now, there are hardly any media voices that do not subscribe to the fear mongereing, "the earth is gonna burn" mindset found when the topic is global warming!

Global warming fear mongering: Built to last and going strong since 1992!

My good buddy BrianR has a policy that he does not involve himself in the religious debates that explode at Townhall from time to time. He doesn't see where they are usually profitable, and he sees them as oftentimes being a distraction from larger political issues. I can respect that position, and the debate at Mike Gallagher's thread about Mitt Romney was a perfect example of what BrianR happens to have articulated in the past. The thread quickly devolved from Mike saying that he didn't particularly appreciate being called a bigot for saying that Romney's LDS faith was a sticking point for him, into a debate about the theology of the LDS church.

And that was a shame, because the larger point that Gallagher was trying to make was important in my view. It is of great import to know what type of religious beliefs a man holds, or how he applies that faith in his life when deciding on a presidential nominee. And using that type of criteria to help make a decision is, in my opinion, absoultely valid and does not mean that you are some type of bigot.

You see, the type of religious beliefs a man holds goes to the very heart of that man. A person's religious faith will, or at least should, be a defining part of his character. What he believes will impact the way a person lives his personal life, and it will impact the political choices and positions of politicians. Your religious faith is supposed to inform not just your religious life, but all aspects of your life...including your worldview.

And that is why individual voters are justified in applying their own religious tests to the people that we are being asked to give our votes to. People are usually not going to vote for people that have nothing in common with them, and are especially unlikely to vote for people who hold religious views that are at odds with theirs. That is the very reason that many evangelical Christians are uncomfortable supporting Mitt Romney, why conservative Catholics are squeamish about Guiliani, and why Christians, Catholics, and Mormons alike are opposed on general principle to supporting Muslims who may run for high office. They are opposed not because of hatred, but because of the fact that they cannot reconcile voting for someone whose religious beliefs are contrary to theirs; they simply canot ignore their religious compass and support someone they are not in tune with.

And truthfully, I have no problem with that; as a matter of fact I completely understand that sentiment, because I share it. I would have great problems if the government applied a religious test to office seekers, but I have no qualms about individuals applying their own religious tests to candidates. Personally, I would have a hard time voting for Romney not just because of his policy flip-flops, but because of his religious beliefs. I have been a Mormon, and while some of the best people I have ever met have been Mormons, that does not change the basic tenets of the LDS church. And because of those tenets, I would have to question the loyalty of the office seeker...is he totally committed to serving the country, or does his loyalty to the LDS faith trump all? It is the same question I would ask of a Muslim: are you committed to upholding the Constitution as you swore to do, or is your first and greatest loyalty to Muhammed the Prophet and his god? These are legitimate questions, and voters should not feel embarassed or ashamed to ask them of their candidates.

We are all different, we all have different likes, dislikes, beliefs, and positions. We have to feel free to make our judgements based on all the available information we have, and we should not be subjected to hectoring or name calling for using that information to make choices. I shouldn't have to justify or explain my giving or wthholding support to anyone; and I definitely should not be called a bigot for not supporting one candidate or the other.

I know that BrianR probably won't be commenting on this, as per the usual...although I would dearly love to get his take on this issue. But I can respect it if he doesn't want to talk about it and will accept his decision if he chooses to stay out of it. I just wish that others could give the same type of respect to those that see the linkage between a person's religious beliefs and their political lives. It is important to many of those trying to make a choice in this...and other...elections.

Because whether you believe it or not there is something that will give you more insight on a person than any number of speeches, policy reports, or media interviews. If you really want to make a complete decision on the quality of candidates, you have to look deep. You have to look at the soul of a man.

I recently borrowed a book from my local public library for a trip I was about to take called A Short History of the Civil War by James L. Stokesbury. It is a nice little read, very informative without being too academic; but one chapter that I read today made me sit up and take notice. The parallels between the attitudes of the Democrats and some Republicans in the Civil War are eerily similar to attitudes that are held today about the Iraq war. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same; read on and you'll see what I mean. Change a few names and dates here or there, and you wouldn't even know that it wasn't the current conflict that is  being discussed.

On the election of 1864:
"In 1864 the Democrats thought they could beat Lincoln, and many Republicans agreed with them. A good many of the latter, indeed, went so far as to suggest that the Republicans should rid themselves of Lincoln, and that they would have a better chance at winning the election if they replaced him..."(pp 259)
Sound familiar?

On Democratic Party campaign strategy:
"They (Dems) certainly needed to cover themselves as best they could, for the game was there for the Democrats to win, if only they could develop a combination to do it. That was the real rub. It was all well and good to cry, 'The war is a failure!' but what did they offer as an alternative? They did not really know. They had some vague ideas that if they stopped the war, somehow all would be well agian; the country might be reunited, and everyone could agree that the late unpleasantness had just not happened. It was far from a positive program, and even that was achieved only by dillegently ignoring a great many facts, most notably that the war had happened..."(pp 259)
Shades of 9/11 anyone?

On selecting a candidate:
"Their (Dems) dilemma was underscored by their search for a candidate. Who would possibly be the Democratic standard-bearer against Lincoln? Since the were going to repudiate the war, it would look best if they had a war hero to do it. The extreme Peace Democrats did not want even that, and they did their best to nominate Horatio Seymour of New York, one of the most difficult anti-war state governors with whom Lincoln had to contend. There was, however, a more charismatic figure, and he let it be known he was available: George Brinton McClellan. The man who had once been willing to "become dictator to save the country, and perish by suicide to preserve its liberties", was now willing to become the Democratic presidential candiate."(pp 259-260)
Ned Lamont, netroots revolution, and John F. Kerry come to mind here!

On the run-up to the elections:
"Most observers were pretty sure the military men, or those connected with them, would in fact vote Republican, but what of the rest of the country, all the millions of people who just needed to get on with their day-to-day lives? They might well not support a war to which they could see no end, and in which they could see little profit. These were the people to whom the Democrats appealed. The war is a failure, the war is a waste; "this bloody and expensive war" was a stock phrase of Democratic editorials and oratory. Lincoln and his gang had suspended civil rights, imposed burdensome taxes, wrecked the country, and for what? To free the slaves? To keep South Carolina in a union it wanted to leave? Surely the country deserved better than these abolitionists, fanatics, political charlatans and backwoods yokels. Surely the country deserved George B. McClellan and peace and prosperity.
In July and August it looked not only as if that was what the country deserved, but also what it wanted. The reports Lincoln recieved from his political managers did not look good. they would almost certainly lose many of the state governments, much of Congress, and they would probably lose the White House too. People were so tired of war and death and destruction; peace was worth almost any price."(pp261)
Where have I read/seen/heard this before? Maybe the MSM?

On what actually happened on election day ( this is a lengthy passage):
"On a more practical level, the Republicans were determined to do all they could, legally and occasionally illegally, to win the election; both sides urged their followers, as the quip has it, to "vote early and vote often." The fall of  Atlanta (Gen. W.T. Sherman, September 1864), though it was percieved as cutting a good deal from under the Democrats' "The war is a failure" campaign, still did not make the election a sure thing or even approach it. One measure the Republicans chose, wisely as it turned out, was to allow and encourage voting by the soldiers themselves. The government hoped that its fighting men would support the war effort, rather than repudiate it. Soldiers from some states that required their physical precence were furloughed so they could go home to vote. Other states sent commissioners to their regiments in the field to record the soldiers' ballots there.
The result was gratifying beyond the Republicans' wildest hopes. Here were the men doing the actual fighting and dying, asked to vote in support of the government, in effect a war, that would make them continue to fight and die--and they did so resoundingly. These men were not fooled by the Democrats' hedging on the great questions of the day, and they knew better than any others that when Jeff Davis said independence was a precondition to peace, he and those who followed him meant exactly that. Of the soldier votes that were tabulated seperately, 199,754 out of 154,045 were for Lincoln-78 percent for the war. There is no reason to believe that those who went home voted any differently from those still in the field; thus Lincoln carried the army by three to one." (pp281-282)
Seem familiar to you?

Now is it just me, or does all this sound familiar? I have heard Rush Limbaugh say for years that the Democrats never change their playbook, but I doubt even he realized that the playbook hadn't changed since the Civil War!!!

I guess the old saying is true: The more things change, the more they stay the same!

*All passages quoted from: A Short History of the Civil War by James L. Stokesbury. New York: Morrow, 1995. Pages 259-61, 281-2.

Before we go any further, let me in form you that this is not about San Fran Nan or her Democrat cohorts. No, this is all about the GOP in general and conservatives in particular; there are enough voices letting people know what the Dems are up to and how conservatives feel about it, that I don't quite think my voice needs to be heard on that subject right now.

I do think that someone needs to speak to the negativity that is emanating from the ranks of the GOP and conservatives concerning the 2008 election. The more I listen to my friends on the consevative side of the aisle, the angrier I get, the more frustrated I become. Everywhere I turn, it seems that we have just about given up any hope of retaining the White House or regaining any strength in the Congress in the '08 election cycle. Too many of us have turned into Negative Nancy's!

Now, I understand that there are problems with the GOP, especially the tendency to promote "electable" WISH (R)'s in nearly every important election cycle. I know that most conservatives are not thrilled with the prospect of having Rudy "The Nogun" Guiliani, John "Maverick" McVain, or "Slick" Mitt Romney as their choices for the presidential nomination and I number myself among them. All of these men have their own baggage to deal with in order to get the nomination and will have a tough time fighting the media tide as they attempt to campaign...if it ever comes to that. I also know that many conservatives, including me, are tired of the GOP's willingness to leave our borders basically unsecured, allowing the flood of illegals to continue unabated. And many are growing weary of a war that has been prosecuted in a bassackward way seemingly from the beginning, and a near phobia about really punishing the enemy and breaking their will to fight. All of those are legitimate concerns and are worthy of serious discussion inside the GOP and in conservative circles.

What I don't get is this rush by many in the GOP and in conservative circles to look into the 2008 election and see only doom and gloom for the right. Too many are damn near handing the election to the Democrat nominee before a nominee has been chosen for either side, or before a single vote has been cast for any candidates!  Maybe it is a situation where folks want to prepare for the worst, but I don't subscribe to that type of thinking. I think we would be better served to spend less time fretting about a possible Democrat win and more time trying to find a way to win. We need to get busy trying to succeed instead of preparing to fail.

And make no mistake, while we are sitting around whining about the eventuality of a Hillary Clinton administration the Democrats are busy trying to create some type of Democrat win. They are not spending all their time an energy on the primary fight, they are looking forward to setting up a winnig campaign for whomever comes out of their primaries as the nominee. Meanwhile, the GOP is standing around in fear of having to face either Obama, Clinton, or horror of horrors....a Clinton-Obama ticket! They are spending all their time seemingly focused on what the other side is doing, to the detriment of their own plans. Do you think Democrat strategists are shaking at the mention of Rudy, Mitt, or McVain?

We have just as much of a chance to win the upcoming elections as the Democrats, so we need to stop running around acting in the exact opposite manner! We need to start planning for success instead of waiting around to fail; we must heed the wisdom of the old saying "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail".

And if we don't stop acting as though we have lost the presidential elections well over a year...a year!!!...out, then we won't just be Negative Nancy's. We will quickly become Perishing Pachyderms...a party in deadly decline.

I am not a culture warrior. There, I said it and it feels good to get it out there! There is so much talk and so many people laying claim to being culture warriors on the conservative side that it seems that being a CW has become almost a requirement. But that's just not me, and as a matter of fact I think the whole idea is pretty silly.

One of the major reasons that I am not a CW is that I do not see it as my duty as an American, and especially as a Christian to be fighting the culture wars. That is not to say that the state of our culture isn't important, I just don't see any precedent for me as a Christian to be running around trying to rescue this fallen culture. As a Christian, my job is to witness to lost souls and try to win them to Christ, not to lobby Congress to get bad words banned from rap muisic. That may be a noble idea, but it isn't exactly what we have been instructed to do.

I also see this whole situation as being an imposition of my tastes on others. While I may not like the lyrics in rap music, I don't think I am exactly in a position to tell others what they should listen to. Just because I don't like something does not mean that no ne else should have access to it. And it smacks of hypocrisy from the conservative side when we rail all day about personal choice and responsibility, yet we are more than willing to try to impose our choices on others. And when we advocate this type of thing, it begs the question of where it all ends. If we succeed in punishing the rappers for saying things that we find to be vile, what are we to say when the left goes after us for saying something they think is vile? There will be nothing we can do, because we will have already set the precedent.

Finally, I see this whole culture warrior stance as being one of extreme arrogance. Every CW I listen to, be it Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingraham all come across as arrogant when they begin to go into their CW speil. It is all about them, what they want, what they like, and how they are speaking for the people. The only thing is, they are not in a position to even speak for their entire audience, much less the entire populace! Take O'Reilly's stupid campaign against Ludacris and Pepsi. He spent all this time and effort to pressure Pepsi to drop Ludacris as a spokesman because O'Reilly disliked his lyrics; nevermind that Ludacris was a top selling artist at the time, and many people in the viewing audience knew who he was and didn't care if Pepsi hired him or not. No, the only thing that mattered was that O'Reilly didn't like him so he had to save the world from the pernicious creep of Ludacris lyrics. Do you not see how arrogant that seems?

I have lots of likes and dislikes, but I have never been so arrogant as to believe that I represent the people. Hell, I don't even embody all the beliefs, attitudes, and opinions in my own home...so I am pretty sure that I'm in no position to speak for anyone but me!

For me, I think that changing the culture has to start at home. My job is to try to live a godly life myself, and then to instill positive morals and values in my children. If I do that, and I am a good example for my friends and neighbors then I have done more to affect the culture than I ever could in protesting who Pepsi uses as a spokesman. If you really want to change the culture for the better, start at home, then start in your neighborhood, your block, and your town. That's how you change things, not howling at the moon about Hollywood movies!

So I think I'll just keep my sword sheathed in this broader culture war. I have a feeling that it wouldn't have done much good to draw it anyway!

*Special thanks to my brother Patrick for helping inspire this idea!

For as long as I can remember race has been the true third rail in American society. We have attempted to understand it, we have tried to discuss it, and all we ever seem to do is argue about it. And we have the same arguments, with the same points raised, all of the time. As much time as has been put towards the discussions, the commissions, and the dialouge efforts we seem to always find ourselves back at the same place. And the question is why. Why can't we seem to come to grips with this issue? Why can't we come to some mutual understanding? And to borrow a phrase from Rodney King: Why can't we all just get along?

I don't claim to have all the answers to these questions, but I am more than willing to share my observations on the issue with you.

One of the reasons we continue to have these issues is that some people don't want to recognize that we are different. While I don't believe that blacks are a different "race", we are a different ethnicity with some unique cultural features...just like those of Japanese ancestry or Polish, or German ancestries. But to say that to some whites, it is like you just slapped their mothers or something! They immediately respond with comments about blacks trying to set themselves apart, trying to make themselves a protected class, or being a Balkanizing force. If you read my post from a while back "It's a Black Thing" and the responses, you will see exactly what I am talking about.

What we black folks don't get is why that is so upsetting to so many whites. What is it about the idea of blacks as having a distinct ethnic identity that gets the blood boiling so? Why is it that many whites treat that type of attitude in blacks as some sort of threat to the American Way? Why can't you just be content to let us have Kwanzaa, especialy since it is not hurting anyone else? Now I personally don't celebrate Kwanzaa, as I think it is a somewhat silly idea; but I do not attack the celebration or those that observe it as some type of subversives either! I live and let live, which seems to be something that many whites seem to be unable to do when it comes to issues of "race".

Where we both, black and white, miss the boat is in treating the other group as a monolithic entity. Some of us black folks are always seeing things that happen in society as products of the white man...while we carry on the same way! And some white folks look at blacks and assume that all blacks are the same; same politics, same lifestyles, same attitudes. All this type of attitude does is further alienate us from one another; it locks us into looking at people as stereotypes, or members of a group instead of individuals. And that is no way for us to go about reaching an understanding of one another. As long as we fall back on our stereotypical views of the other ethnic group, we are going to stay stuck in the same old rut; spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.

If we ever plan to get past the point we are now, we all need to start looking at ourselves and what we need to change. And the changes have to come from within ouselves; we have to make a personal effort to get ourselves straight before we look at others. We all have to stop setting up our racial strawmen that we can attack, start looking at things as they are, and trying to really make an effort to move forward if we want perceptions to change.

That at least would be a good start at changing things for the better. And that's the truth in black and white.

There's a saying in the hip-hop world that says "Don't hate the player, hate the game"; basically it means that you can't be mad at the players for playing by the rules of the game. Right now it seems that everyone out there is doing a lot of hating both the players and the game in when it comes to hip-hop music. The big topic of the day, in the wake of the Don Imus affair has been what is wrong with hip-hop, and the growing consensus seems to be that hip-hop is the major culprit of all things wrong with American culture right now. At least that's what I'm getting from news, talk radio, and all manner of conservative websites.

But I am here, as a pretty loyal fan of hip-hop to defend the honor of the music. I am here to stand up for the artists who do good music, but are being tarred by this anti hip-hop fervor that suddenly seems to be sweeping the land. I am pretty sure that I will catch some heat for saying some of the things I am about to say, but I'm a big boy and I can take it. I also have the forum to debate with those who wish to debate, and maybe I can shed a little light on the subject for them.

My major problem with all of this anti hip-hop hysteria is the fact that so many of the people attacking the music don't even listen to it. Maybe they have different musical tastes, maybe they tried it and it wasn't for them; whatever the reasons so many that are in a rush to condemn hip-hop do not listen to the music. They take selected lyrics from selected songs...usually the most objectionable they can find...plaster them on screen, or read them on their shows and proclaim that this is what all hip-hop music is. They don't care that there is a wide range of hip-hop out there, the only thing they care about is that they have found some offensive language and images to bludgeon hip-hop with. The problem is, hip-hop is much more varied than that.

I would venture a guess that most everyone out there knows the name of Snoop Dogg, Eminem, or Nelly. They know that these guys rap about some stuff that pretty nasty, foul mouthed, and in many cases misogynistic. And for them, this is hip-hop....all there is. The problem is, these guys are not all there is...not by a long shot.

They don't know...and don't care to...about Nas, or Common, or Most Def, or the Roots. They don't know about Rakim, or Tribe Called Quest, or Black Sheep, or De La Soul. And the reason is because these artists don't fit the profile that has been created for hip-hop. Since these guys don't spend all their time rapping about b*tches, p*mps, or gangbanging they don't count...because if they did maybe hip-hop wouldn't be so menacing. Maybe there would be something to talk about other than how bad the language is in hip-hop, how violent it is, or how degrading its images often are. Acknowledging these rappers, and others like them, would maybe be reason to rethink some of the stereotypes of hip-hop, and would show the world that hip-hop isn't the new devil on the block. So don't hold your breath waiting for any features on them...they don't fit the profile.

Another problem I have is the fact that suddenly hip-hop has become the way out for others who screw up. The only reason everyone is suddenly on the "hip-hop is bad" bandwagon is because it was dragged into the Imus affair as a way to mitigate what he said. He calls the women of Rutgers some racially offensive names, and suddenly the cry goes up "What about the rappers!" To which I say, "What about them?" What do they have to do with this? What did they say on Imus's show about those young ladies? I see it for what it is...an easy way to deflect attention from one wrong by highlighting another. I have no problem with challenging rappers or their record companies for producing some of the junk they put out there, but I do object to the timing of it all. This has been problematic for a long time now, but it hasn't drawn this much interest in a long time from the MSM or the conservative side of the aisle. But as soon as Don Imus sticks his foot down his throat, the lyrics in rap music become a huge issue? Seems like mighty suspicious timing to me!

I also have a problem with the lack of attention being paid to the companies that put this music out there. While they are usually mentioned in passing, usually to talk about the larger evils of the MSM, they are largely given a pass by all involved in talking about the issue. The outrage seems to be all reserved for the rappers who record the music, with scant attention paid to the hustlers who put the records out. To me, as bad as the rappers may be, the corporations are worse. They are worse because they are the ones making huge pofits off of this mess and they are the ones promoting it.

I remember back when hip-hop was almost exclusively a black thing; when the biggest company dealing with rappers was Def Jam Records. Back then, from the mid 1980s to the early 90s, rap music was different. It was all about who was the best MC, who had the best DJ, whose crew was the best, and who could turn a party out. Guys like Kurtis Blow, Melle Mel and the Furious Five, LL Cool J, Doug E. Fresh and the Get Fresh Crew, the Juice Crew, and Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Pince ruled the airwaves. That was a time when word of mouth could make or break a record...if people said your music was lame, you weren't going to sell many records.

All of that changed in the 90s when the corporations saw there was money to be made off of hip-hop music. Suddenly records were beng promoted by the record companies and the music itself begn to change. It went from how good your crew was, to how many n*ggas you killed on the block. Jazzy Jeff was out and NWA was in. And the dirty little secret that even now no one wants to address was born....hip-hop was no longer a black thing, it was now being mass produced for a mainly white, suburban audience. And when that happened, that was the first time that politicians and the media gave a damn about what was being said on those records. Suddenly hip-hop became a scourge that had to be dealt with...when it began to affect them, when their kids suddenly were wearing LA Kings caps and listening to ZAGGIN-4-EFIL. And I detect some of that same undercurrent in this sudden burst of righteous indignation about how bad the lyrics in hip-hop are.

I am not saying that the lyrics in all of hip-hop music are uplifting, nor am I convinced that they are all vile and misogynistic. I understand, and agree that some of this stuf...a lot in fact...is unhealthy and someone needs to take a stand against it. What I am saying is that not all of hip-hop should be smeared with the same broad brush. Not eveyone should be lumped in with the purveyors of p*mping, or the glorification of gangsterism. And some of that voluminous outrage directed at the rappers should be shared with the people that make it all possible, their corporate bosses.

I'm just saying in this case, you should hate the players...and the game.

I have been watching and reading, as I am sure you have, a great deal of the coverage and discussion about the mass murder at VaTech. Other than the quick politicization of the affair, as I wrote about in a previous blog, I have been struck by the quickness of the blame game that is being played here. It started almost as quickly as the politicization did, and it is no less unseemly in my eyes.

First, there were the cries of  "Where were the police?", and "Why didn't they lock down the campus?", followed quickly by calls for the resignation of the campus police Chief W.R. Flinchum and University President Charles Steger. While I understand that this is an upsetting incident, to say the least, I am left feeling a bit outraged by all this outrage at these two men.

Chief Flinchum did the best he could do under the circumstances, in my opinion. He had to deal with a double murder in a dorm that seemed like a domestic violence situation, and he followed the best lead he had; believing that the killer was the boyfriend of the victim, the police left campus to get him. Their lead was wrong, but that is the way that things sometims go in a police investigation. Going after the person he thought was the killer does not, in my opinon, make Chief Flinchum the bad guy in this scenario...and it did not allow the later events to take place.

And how does a police force lock down a 2600 acre campus? It's not exactly like locking down the local high school that may have 3-4 buildings on it; this is 2600 acres we're talking about here! And think of this, if the campus had been locked down, the killer would have probably simply killed the people he was confined with. This man was on a mission to kill, and a lock down was not going to deter him from completing his mission.

As for the President, what good does it do to force him out? I'm pretty sure that he did not have in his day-planner "Allow student massacre" circled for the day! In our rush to blame someone else for the actions of one deranged individual, we are willing to sacrifice a man that has done, by most accounts, a fine job of running that university.

Then came the hand wringing over the fact that Cho Seung-Hui had written some disturbing plays and poems, and that some felt he was dangerous. At these revelations, the mob began to howl that he should have been institutionalized or at the very least kicked out of school. Populist-in-Chief Bill O'Reilly said on his show that Seung-Hui should have been expelled from the university for allegedly stalking a female student and for his disturbing writings; he later amended that to a suspension, but you get the drift. It was all about the university being held responsible for the actions of this one man, not the man himself.

But someone please tell me this, what grounds would he school have expelled him on? The fact that he was an alleged stalker? Or that he was feared by some classmates, even though he had not even made any threats towards them? Or because he wrote some plays that disturbed his professors? If writing disturbing stuff is grounds for institutionalization then we had better go get the people who wrote the SAW movies, and Stephen King too. The SAW movies were definitely disturbing, and Mr. King has written some things that kept me awake at night! But this is so strange to me, especially coming from conservatives, because we are usually the first to complain when some lib gets the vapors because something disturbs him. Remember how we mocked Tom Daschle for always being disturbed, but now that this happens the teacher being disturbed should be grounds for committment to a mental institution?

Now there is the uproar about ABC news airing Seun-Hui's "Manifesto" and video footage. "Why, ABC should be ashamed of itself for airing that footage! It is disrespectful and hurtful to the families to show this, and may inspire copycats!", splutters the right. But, even though you may find it distasteful, it is news. And even if you fnd them distasteful, ABC is still a news organization...and they had an obligation to show that footage. You are free to watch or not watch, that is your choice; but as a news organization ABC News was duty bound to air that tape. Besides which, after all of the whining we have done about the refusal of the news media to air the images of 9/11, doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical of us to now catch the vapors over this, and claim that it is too traumatic to air? Isn't that the exact argument that the left uses to protest the airing of the 9/11 footage? See the hypocrisy there, folks? I do.

Also, there is the talk about what the students should have done during the shooting. Some are acting as though it was the responsibility or duty of the students to run towards the gunfire in order to stop the carnage. But you know what, all of those people saying that would have probably done exactly what those scared kids did on that campus: Get the hell away ASAP! They wouldn't have gone running towards the gunfire, just like I wouldn't have. Heck, the only people I know who run towards gunfire are cops and soldiers...and they have the means to fight back! What good would it have done for a group of unarmed studentsto go rushing into a free fire zone, trying to be heroes? They may have gotten him eventually, but I can just about guran-damn-tee you that there would have been more than 33 victims if they had tried that, and we would be seeing even more families in mourning today. So all the armchair heroes, who get to talk about what should have been done from the safety of their homes should just stick the proverbial sock in it. The next time you are in a situation where you're unarmed and someone starts firing on people, you can tell me all about how you rushed the gunman...if you survive the encounter.

But the thing that bothers me most is how, in laying blame all around, the one person that is to blame is almost overlooked. We are so busy blaming Chief Flinchum and his campus police force, President Steger for a slow response, the other students for not rushing towards gunfire, and ABC News for airing a newsworthy video that we are forgetting one person: Cho Seung-Hui.

It was Cho Seung-Hui who murdered two people in a dormitory, it was Cho Seung-Hui who purchased those guns...legally...for the purpose of committing these murders, and it was Cho Seung-Hui who committed the largest mass murder in American history. Not those scared students, not Chief Flinchum, not President Steger, not ABC News....CHO SEUNG-HUI!!!!!

And the sooner we stop playing blame games, and start looking at the real culprit, the better off we will all be.

Watching the coverage of the Don Imus affair and the recent massacre of students at Virginia Tech, I have been struck by just how political everything has become. Nothing that happens in our society can be seen simply as it is, it is now all filtered through a political lens whether it has anything to do with politics or not.

I know this is not a new phenomenon, but the attitude that all things are political just bothers me somewhere down deep. And the politicization is not just coming from the left, oh no, it comes from the right as well! Take the Don Imus affair for example. I have been hearing people that I usually respect and agree with floating some of the most preposterous things about the whole Imus imboglio. Somehow, Don Imus and his comments went from being about what he said and whether or not he should be punished to a discussion of the politics of the affair. I heard a reporter ask a question at the White House news briefing about what the President thought about Imus's remarks and what should happen to him. As if the President of the United States has nothing better to do than follow the ramblings of Don Imus! But the question was just an attempt, in my view, to try to get the President caught up in the mess and to use whatever statement made from the White House to paint a negative political picture. But I also listened, in stunned disbelief, as my personal favorite on talk radio tried to spin it in a different way politically. I heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that the firing of Don Imus was orchestrated by the Clintonistas, and that it was really a shot across the bow to let conservatives know that they're next. Then I logged on to TownHall and read the same sentiments from posters here and I wondered: When did this become a political issue?

Then came the horrific events at VaTech, and sad is may seem, my thoughts went straight from the massacre to waiting to see how quickly the talk would turn to politics...gun control in particular. And it did not take long at all. One of the first reports that I saw was at my mother in law's house on CNN and the reporter and anchor were already talking about how easy it was for people to purchase handguns in Virginia, and how the laws pobably needed to be tougher. Then I heard some conservatives talking about how this could have been avoided if there was not a "gun free" zone on the VaTech campus and how that is a symptom of the liberal influence on society....then I came to TownHall and read some of the same things here. And the arbiter of all that is political, Rosie O'Donnell, came out trashing the President for going to the VaTech campus to speak at the convocation when it took him 5 days to get to New Orleans after Katrina. And I asked myself again: When did this become political?

The answer, I guess, is when we the people decided that everything was to be looked at from a political standpoint. As much as the news media has to do with it, and they are a big influence, they wouldn't cover stories that way if we weren't eating it up. We don't tune in to watch the news anymore, even on FNC, we tune in to watch the politics. We tune in to root on our side and to boo and hiss the other side; I know because I am just as guilty as anyone else of doing it. I only watch about 10 minutes of national news coverage a night, and that is the roundtable segment on Brit Hume's show on FNC; the news has ceased to be news because we want to see our gladitorial political battles played out in front of us.

So the next time we are watching some report about...oh a car safety issue...and we start to wonder why it is being reported as a political issue, don't get mad at NBC. Take a look in the mirror and think about how quick YOU were to see the political perspective there. It's not their fault, they're just giving us what we want.

All politics, all the time.

Since I decided to title my blog "Calling a Spade a Spade", I have only occasionally called the spade on my conservative brethren. That has not been by design, but because I generally have found less to correct in the words and actions of conservatives than I have with Republicans and liberals (Democrats included). But this whole Don Imus situation has put me in a position where I think it is time for me to call the spade on my side of the aisle.

First of all, we conservatives have launched into the biggest hysterical fit I have seen in ages over this. There has been all sorts of talk emanating from the right about how this is a constitutional issue, how Imus had his rights trampled on by the P.C. Police, and how wrong it was that he was fired by MSNBC and CBS Radio. That is the biggest crop of crap I have heard in a while! No one said that Don Imus did not have a right to say the mean spirited, racist, and misogynistic things that he said on his show; there was an uproar and a backlash that followed that was predictable and led to his dismissal. He has a right to say what he wants, but he does not have a right to continue to be employed as a radio talk show host. Simple as that, no constitutional issues here at all, so you can all just move along folks!

Secondly, there was the sudden rush to defend Imus's words as just a stupid joke gone awry. Maybe that was the case, but is that the type of joke that we want airing over the public airwaves? Conservatives were all fired up over the Janet Jackson/ Justin Timberlake halftime debacle, but suddenly we rush to defend a man that calls the Scarlet Knights "nappy headed ho's" and laughs while his producer calls them "jigaboo's" as some sort of First Amendment martyr. Do you know how hypocritical that makes us all look? We rush to defend him because we have leaped to the conclusion that if Imus falls, then the next targets will be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham. Unless Laura, Rush, or Sean have a history of inflammatory and insulting statements in the same vein as Don Imus, I don't think we have a lot to worry about on that front. But by making him some type of cause celebre, we have lowered them to his level. Nice work on that one guys!

Further, there is the unrelenting attack on Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that has resulted form this episode. I swear before God that if we didn't have Jesse and Al we would have to make them up! As soon as Jessie and Al spoke up about this issue, the whole conversation changed from what Imus said to what Al and Jesse have said and done in the past....it really has nothing to do with what is happening today, but it gives us all another chance to go after the "race pimps" right? Lord knows that Al and Jesse have been some of the biggest jack-legs out there, and they are among the best in history at race baiting, but in this case they didn't do that at all. They reacted to what DON IMUS said; they didn't make it up, they didn't accuse him falsely, and they didn't misconstrue what he said to suit their purposes. They simply reacted in the way the usually do in these types of situations...only this time they many have been justified in calling for old Donnie's head. If you clicked on my link you may have seen why they were justified here, there has been a consistent pattern over the years from this guy that finally resulted in his getting the boot. To paraphrase Hugh Hewitt, just because the vultures are swarming does not mean they killed their meal!

Finally, there has been a rash of statements about the lyrics of rap music in relationship to this episode, which as I wrote about earlier, I think is apples and oranges. Whether you like or hate rap music, whether you appreciate the artistry of the music or not, it is an art form and has to be taken as such. The language is not acceptable and should be discouraged that is used in much of the music, but it is an art form of sorts.  That makes it fundamentally different from what Don Imus said on his radio show. Besides which, all of the ruminations about how nothing has been said or attempted to be done about this language in rap music are false. Does no one remember Tipper Gore and the heat she got for fighting to get explicit lyrics stickers put on CDs that contained "adult" language? Has everyone forgotten the struggle that C. Delores Tucker waged to get something done about Interscope records, and specifically Snoop Dogg's "Doggystyle" CD? Or the Reverend Calvin Butts and his steamrollering copies of many a rap CD in front of his New York church? And since Rev. Sharpton has become the focal point of criticism here, let's be honest about the situation; Al Sharpton has spoken out and written about his problems with rap music before, it just has never gotten that much attention. Don't believe me? Check here and here to see some of the things that Al has said on this issue that didn't seem to get much media coverage. Also, others in the black community have spoken out against the problems within rap music including Spike Lee, the women of Spellman College, and writer Lonnae O'Neal Parker. The debate has been raging, and hip hop has been taken to task...but no one has been watching! It is way easier for many, including conservatives, to assume that the debate is not being had, that leaders are not speaking out, and that the music has the tacit approval of the black community and it's leaders simply because there is not a great deal of media coverage.

So conservatives, we may need to take a step back and reflect on this issue a bit more. We are not covering ourselves in glory by sticking up for Don Imus, our talk show hosts are not in the same boat as Imus because they know how to show restraint and they have higher standards, and there has been a constant challenging of rap music lyrics by many in the black community...including your favorite target Al Sharpton.

If we are going to say that we are a bit better than the liberals in sticking to facts over opinions and feelings, we failed in that regard in this episode.

So don't get mad at me for saying so. I'm just calling the spade.

In all of the discussion about Don Imus and his comments about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, much has been made about the involvement of Jessie jackson and Al Sharpton calling for Imus's dismissal. All of the misdeeds of the two men in the past have been dredged up in order to provide cover for those wishing to ignore their vioces in this particular matter.

While I have no love for Sharpton or Jackson, I understand exactly how they feel on this one. Many people are too willing to say that what Don Imus said was just a stupid comment and should be forgiven; besides, Jackson once called New York "Hymietown" while running for President. And Sharpton was infamously involved with the Tawanna Brawley hoax back in the 1980s, so he is certainly not clean in the eye of the public. All of that notwithstanding, I find myself sharing in the outrage, hurt, and anger that Sharpton and Jackson have expressed in the past few days.

I have been called n*gger, coon, and watermelon by people in my lifetime. I have been told to get out of the town that I lived in by a group of unseen, drunken rednecks as my two brothers, Craig and Patrick, a cousin and I walked home from playing basketball at a church in our hometown. So I can understand the feeling of the women of Rutgers as they were called "rough ho's", "nappy headed ho's", and "jigaboo's" for no reason at all. And for once I cheered Al Sharpton as he held Don Imus's feet to the fire and would not let him get away with saying that his comments were just "stupid".  And his past history had nothing to do with his standing up against Don Imus and calling his words what they were...racist.

However, some have taken the instance of Don Imus calling the Scarlet Knights "jigaboo" and "ho" to launch into a tirade about the language in rap music. While we can all agree that the language,imagery, and message of much of the rap music out there is reprehensible, let's keep it in the proper perspective.

Rap music is first, last, and always entertainment. It serves the same purpose as television and movies; that is to entertain those that choose to partake of it. As bad as much of this music is, as much as they are calling women b*tches and hoes, it is simply an entertainment medium. Rappers play a role on their records just like actors do on stage or on film. Some of the very names that get bandied about when the conversation turns to the evils of rap music are some of the most straight laced guys in the world. Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eminem, and Ludacris aren't real gangters...they just play one on T.V. When the tour is over, when the record is finished Dr. Dre becomes Andre Young and goes out to his posh neighborhood in L.A. to his wife and kids. Snoop Dogg turns into Calvin Broadus and goes home to help raise his kids; Ludacris becomes Chris Bridges and goes to his suburban Atlanta mansion, Eminem becomes Marshall Mathers, a guy who dotes on his daughter, and Ice Cube becomes O'Shea Jackson and rolls into his L.A. suburb to be a husband and father. These men are not what they say on their records; they are real people with real lives away from the job of being rappers.

That is not to say that much of what passes for hip hop music nowadays has any value, because most of it doesn't. And it is not to say that calling people n*gga, b*tch, or hoe is the way to go, because it isn't. What I am saying is that comparing what any rapper says on a record and what Don Imus said is trying to compare apples to oranges: both are fruits that grow on trees, and that's where the similarities end. As bad as much of the language is on rap records, it is not comparable to what Imus said. At least what is said in rap songs is said in some sort of context; Don Imus simply launched a racist, sexist broadside at a group of women that had done nothing to deserve it. That is the difference between the two.

Don't waste time shedding any tears for Don Imus, or try pretending that his rights have somehow been abridged because they haven't. He exercised his free speech rights, and now he has to live with the consequences of his words. May he choke on his own bile and venom, the mean spirited little coward.

And don't try to turn this into a discussion about what is said on a rap song, because that is just a convenient way to avoid the issue here and compare apples and oranges.

Our government is under attack, not from without but from within. I know that sounds a bit overly dramatic, a bit overwrought for some of you, but that does not make it untrue. There is a movement afoot that seeks to overturn our very system of Constitutional government, that seeks to wreck the balance that our Founders worked so hard to establish, and seeks to concentrate power in the hands of one branch of our government. And this time it is not the judicial branch that is pursuing power, it is the legislative branch that is seeking to usurp the power of the executive.

Since George W. Bush won the hotly contested 2000 Presidential election over Senator Albert Gore (D-Tenn), the Congress has sought to hamstring his administration, to derail any plans he brought forth, and to discredit any policies that he put forth that did not meet their approval. This in itself is not so bad, in fact it is the way the system usually works. The minority Party attempts to put up a principled opposition to the majority Party and uses all of the accepted means of doing so. And if they find themselves in the majority during the administration of a President of the opposite Party, they ratchet things up another level. Again, that is the way the game is played.

However, the Democrat(ic) Party has taken that business as usual and turned it dangerously on it's head. The Democrats, in their zeal to get George Bush have decided that anything goes in their war against Bush, and neither established Senate rules nor the Constitution itself will stand in their way. They are on a mission, and they will go through hell or high water to see it to a successful conclusion.

The Congress started shredding the Constitution in 2002 when it passed the BCRA, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The bill basically limits political speech in the time frame just before an election...in direct defiance of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The Congress decided that even though the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", it would do just that in order to "clean up" the campaign process. Conservatives watched in horror as the President stupidly signed into law a measure that clearly conflicted with his oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, and watched in further shock as the SCOTUS ruled that an obviously un-Constitutional law was ruled to have passed Constitutional muster.

The assault was now on, and the President was going to be in for a wicked ride.

The next major blow to the normal operation of the legislative branch was the Democrat(ic) Party's move to unilaterally change the rules of the Senate, especially as it came to judicial confirmation. Democrat(ic) Senators, in an effort to deny the President his choice of judicial appointees, suddenly decided that henceforth a super majority of 60 votes would be necessary to confirm judicial appointees sent to the Senate. When Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn) attempted to rally the Republican majority to force a showdown on the issue, and to invoke the so-called "nuclear option" to deal with the Democrat intransigence, the much ballyhooed "Gang of 14" stepped in to save the day. What they did, though, was to basically uphold the 60 vote majority idea that has since spread to involve all sorts of legislation. Now a bill has to have 60 votes before it is sent to the President's desk instead of the simple majority that was needed up until the Democrat(ic) minority changed the rules in the middle of the game.

Fast forward to the present and you will see a Congress that is hell bent on assuming the powers that the Constitution reserves for the Chief Executive of the United States. While a group of Democrats in the House attempts to pass legislation that would infringe on the powers of the Commander-in-Chief to wage war in the manner that he sees fit, another group in the Senate is demanding answers to why the President chose to fire 8 U.S. Attorneys... who serve at the pleasure of the President. The House Democrats want to set up artificial timetables for troop withdrawals in Iraq and to "slow bleed" the military so that the President has to do as the Congress says in waging war. They seek to assume the powers of a de facto Commander in Chief, while emasculating the real Commander. Meanwhile, the Senate Democrats want to force the President into a position of defending personnel decisions within the Executive branch to the Legislative; they are trying to take away the power of the President to hire and fire as he sees fit by setting themselves up as an unconstitutional watchdog group!

Now, if we saw that type of action taking place in Bolivia, Brazil, or Argentina we would be shocked and outraged by the brazenness of the usurpers. Our Department of State would condemn it in the strongest terms, and the international community would at least feign concern for the rule of law.

So, why are we not calling the actions of this rogue Congress exactly what we would call it if it happened anywhere else in the world?

If it was anywhere else but here, we would be calling it by it's proper name.

Coup D' Etat.

The Democrat(ic) Party has an embarrassing personal problem, and I am willing to give them my expertise for free. I have seen this disease ravage my own Party and am loathe to stand by and allow it to decimate another great Party with such a rich, diverse history. The dread disease that I am speaking of is...(pregnant pause)...P.I.!

1. For the sake of brevity, I will only give a list of the most dangerous and obvious warning signs; if you notice any of these signs in a Party, get it help quickly...or it may be too late!

Symptom#1: Desperation. This is a common symptom and may cause the afflicted to try crazy things to gain attention, such as touting al-Gore as a serious documentarian or William Jefferson as an example of an honest politician.

Symptom#2: Lack of strength. This symptom causes the Party to offer weak non binding resolutions to things like, oh, the Iraq War instead of taking a firm stand on the issue. This weakness is often seen in conjunction with cases of mealy mouth and demands immediate attention!

Symptom#3: Schizophrenia. Sufferers of P.I. often have two or more distinct personalities that surface under stress. Examples include voting for the war, before voting against it, being from the Northeastern U.S. but speaking with a Southern accent, and being a civil rights champion while claiming pride in the slave owning heritage of your home state.

Symptom#4: Memory loss. Those dealing with the ravages of P.I. often have trouble remembering specific events clearly. Examples include how they came into possession of classified raw F.B.I. files, how classified documents ended up in their socks, past statements (circa late 90's) on Iraqi WMD, and how the hell Howard Dean managed to become chair of the DNC!

Symptom#5: Hysteria. This ailment is common among chronic P.I. patients and their partners. It manifests itself in wailing about the "outing" of C.I.A. desk jockeys and the firing of a group of political appointees by the President.

Symptom#6: Self destructive behavior. Many P.I. patients succumb to desperation and do things that will destroy them in the long run. Examples include introducing a new super majority rule in the Senate, playing to the far left fringe, and turning on a loyal member because of his vote on one crucial issue, which drives him to the other camp.

If you see any of these signs in a political Party near you, please urge him to seek help. Big Pharmaceutical has developed a slew of drugs that may just help deal with the problem.

After all, if the little blue pill van help Bob Dole with his E.D., it can surely help the Democrats with their Political Impotence!

Friends, with school in full swing and a family life to maintain,  I have found that lately I had less time to blog than I would like. I haven't been as active at TownHall as usual, and I haven't been adding as much here at the Spade as i would like. But that should not lessen your reading pleasure here because I have five obscure, little noticed posts here that I would like for you all to take a gander at. Many of them are timely and all are pretty good reads...if I do say so myself ;-D  Here they are, in no particular order...enjoy!

Getting Some Religion (pg 3)

Free Speech (pg 4)

Blackout (pg 5)

Like A Kid Again(pg 5)

Fox in the Henhouse (pg4)

Well it is almost Easter, so it must be time again for the requisite "Jesus wasn't God" mockumentaries and commentaries. And it is time for us Christians to get our undies in a bunch, get full of outrage, and stand to defend our God from these scurrilous attacks. But maybe we need to look at this from a different perspective; maybe we need to learn to rejoice in this type of attack.

See, when I was a kid going to church it seemed that every person that stood up to testify about what God meant to them, or what God had done for them ended by saying that we were "living in the last and evil days". As youngster, that kind of talk scared me to death because I thought the world was literally about to end; as I got older I began to discount such talk as almost superstitious, because i saw no signs that the last days were even close to us. Now, I have come to know that we are living in at least the precursor to the end times, if not the end times themselves...and I have no fear of it. I know that what God has ordained will come to pass, whether I like it, dislike it, or ignore it. It will come to pass, because God is who He says He is...and He reigns over all things!

We Christians sometimes spend so  much effort and energy fighting off the attacks on the body of Christ, that we lose sight of the fact that this is how it is supposed to be, and how it is going to be. Matthew 10:16-39 tells us that we are going to be persecuted, even hated for His name's sake, so we need to learn to deal with it and see that it is part of God's perfect will. I know that being persecuted is not easy, nor am I saying that apologetics are no longer needed because they are, now more than ever. We need to be able to explain and defend our faith in front of the world, we need to know what we believe and why we believe it so that we can effectively lift up the name of Christ in this generation. What we don't need to do is worry ourselves about the reasons why the Church is under attack, or become defensive when talking about our Lord and Savior; we need to realize that all the things that we see happening before our eyes were foretold in the Scriptures.

We have been on notice that in the last days men would become lovers of themselves, that sexual perversions would flourish, that the Church would be under near constant attack, and that men would turn away from good doctrine in order to hear things that sound good to them. All of these things are signs that the end is nearer every day, and they are not reasons for fear, angst,or anger. They are in fact what we are to be rejoicing over as it signals that our Lord is soon to come to reclaim this fallen planet, and to take possession of His Bride. Instead of apprehension or fear, we should be looking hopefully towards Heaven every day secure in the knowledge that the Bridegroom is coming to claim His Bride!!

So while we continue to spread God's Word, and while we continue to defend the Gospel against heresy, division, and attack do not forget to rejoice in all things! It will be alright, sooner rather than later because God has ordained it to be so! He hasn't lied to us, and our faith will not be in vain.

Because HE REIGNS!!!!