Obama Proposes Longer School Day, Shorter Summer Vacation
President says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe. AP Sunday, September 27, 2009
Are you kidding me? As if teachers and students don’t have enough to do in the day, now we have to listen to the “messiah” and his education secretary preach to us about how we can’t keep up with the rest of the globe. Will he ever stop telling us how bad we are? Of course not. We haven’t met his standards yet.
I know what you are thinking: “How can he argue with making our students better at what they do? How can he argue with improving their quality of education?” Anyone ever hear of the old saying “less is more”? The people who went to school on the agrarian schedule of the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s-the schedule Obama says is outdated and no longer viable-put a man on the moon for goodness sake. And their kids enhanced that whole dot-com thing. They even gave us such things as aviation technology, the microwave, super glue, the laser, McDonald’s, the ATM, the computer, Microsoft Windows, the artificial heart, GPS, and the slinky.
If you want more proof that some old, out-dated stuff still works check out the early part of the 20th century: the first gas powered manned airplane, sonar, the Model T, the first talking motion picture, canned beer, and cortisone just to name a few. Heck, the 20th century even gave us guys like John Nash, Donald Glasser, William Phillips, Ray Crock, Henry Ford, and Vince Lombardi. How in the world did they ever make it? A lot of good those out fashioned school days did them!
As a teacher I take exception to a man who benefited from the old way of doing things telling me that my students can’t keep up. Sure, some kids do benefit from longer time in the classroom, but what about the kids that work after school? What about those that participate in athletics, piano lessons, drama, ballet, and Boy Scouts? Is Obama going to cut them slack? Will he provide for those that need money to pay for their car insurance? I doubt it, unless he raises taxes.
The U.S. already spends more time and money on kids than any other developed country and look at where we are. Will more time make a difference? Quantity doesn’t equal quality, at least not for the whole. How about we do this: let’s develop schools that specialize in all day training for students who want to work in jobs that are more oriented towards manual labor. You know how much a good mechanic can make, or a skilled welder? A heck of a lot more than a teacher, that’s for sure! Why do we force those kids to sit in classes all day where they tend to zone out, and in some cases create problems for teachers and other students? (Yes, they do need those liberal arts classes, but all day?) True, some of them won’t change regardless where you put them, so why don’t we set up schools that deal with their social issues before they wind up in jail? I guess that wouldn’t be politically correct, right? Can we not meet the kids where they are, while they are in school, instead of just adding more time at school to their day?
Now here is where some people will point the finger at me and call me selfish. Will we get a raise for our extra time? Teachers, especially coaches, already work 50-60 hours a week and in many cases it’s more than that. I have sacrificed time with my family to work with the kids in my school because I believe that time on the practice field can translate to better students and better human beings. (Notice that extra time is outside the classroom. It’s not in the classroom that our benevolent leader wants to turn into a laboratory.)
The Audacity of Hope? How about the Audacity of the Self-Righteous! If Obama can do better let him step down from his job where he is highly un-qualified and step into the classroom. Community organizing will get you nowhere in my room. Only high expectations, discipline, and creativity makes a difference here. Some kids reject it, and that’s too bad, but some of those kids could benefit from ideas I have already mentioned. The only scary thing about implementing those things is that the government will eventually try and stretch its tentacles into them somehow. Mr. President, shut up and focus on the nuclear threat from Iran. We can handle our students. We don’t need your “help” or your “hope and change”.
Special note: Instead of criticizing and bemoaning teachers and students, how about letting the parents of some of these kids have it? If they can’t read, tell them to get off their butts and learn to read. Tell those parents to stay together and expect their kids to behave, work hard, and be productive. And while you are at, stop supporting the unmitigated slaughter of innocent children. If we had some of those defenseless kids who were murdered here with us we might have had the next Alexander Graham Bell on our hands. Or, if we are lucky, we might get another Ronald Reagan from those yet to see the light of the day. Lord, how we need the Gipper now!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
To Those Who Advocate
I am sick and tired of it. Nay, I am sick and tired of them. Just the other day a girl told a friend of mine-at church no less- that he wasn’t “open-minded” because he opposes Obama, a man who supports genocidal beliefs. Why is it people who are capable of making up their minds and then standing on their chosen principles are told that they aren’t “open-minded”? Someone saying they are “open-minded” is just a disguise for their cowardice and inability to make a choice. It is also a great disguise for their ability to over look sin so they can justify their choices.
There is something else that puzzles me. How can people who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ (yeah, the dude who came to save EVERYONE) support politicians who think that it is okay to dismember babies while they are in the womb? Why do they kick and scream like petulant toddlers when the government doesn’t tax the rich enough and not go into a fit of holy rage when a doctor in Florida cuts the umbilical cord of a baby-one that has come out of the womb-and lets it bleed to death because of a mother’s “right to choose”? Where is their anger over the fact that a baby was murdered?
My bewilderment doesn’t stop there. It puzzles me more when I consider that “Christians” actually support a President who voted against the Born Alive Act. Excuse me. He abstained from voting on that one, which is just a disguise for cowardice and impotence. The Born Alive Act would have made it mandatory that doctors give immediate medical attention to babies who survive abortions. Obama, even while abstaining from voting, said that voting for it would harm a woman’s “right to choose” (i.e., it would be a stepping stone to over-turning Roe v. Wade). Hey, “Christians”. Where are you now? Did you know that? Of course you did. It was plastered all over the news!
It is estimated that between 40 and 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade was decided. Some people just pass by that number without so much as batting an eye. That sad fact reminds me of what Hitler said: the bigger the number the less likely people are to believe it. Let that sink in: 40 to 50 million babies have been butchered, dismembered, burned to death with saline, and had a tube rammed into the back of their heads with the express purpose of sucking out their brains all because it was determined that making abortion illegal infringed on a woman’s right to privacy. The support of abortion alone is disgusting, but it is even more abhorrent that Christians vote for politicians who support it!
I am also disgusted by politicians who say “I hate abortion, but it is the law of the land.” Tax evasion is also illegal, and they have no qualms about going after tax cheats, but stopping wholesale slaughter would step on the “right to choose”. Where in the world are our priorities? It is pathetic when money comes before innocent life. Wait a minute. I recall something about loving money being the root of ALL evil. Now I remember! Those were the words of Jesus. I guess those “Christians” over looked that verse.
The day my wife and I found out that we were having a baby girl we were told, very casually, that she had an issue that might cause cystic fibrosis. We were terrified. Our hearts sunk. What do you do in a situation like that? To be fair, while our doctor wasn’t all that emotionally supportive, she did encourage us by telling us that medical innovations had made it possible for people with cystic fibrosis to live fruitful lives as long as a.) It was caught early, and b.) It was treated effectively. That was somewhat relieving, but nothing could comfort our “what ifs”. But the part that struck me the most was that in situations like that people actually choose to kill their babies because they didn’t want them to suffer the potential possibility that they might live with a debilitating disease. They also choose to do the same when the baby is the result of a rape, incest, pre-marital sex, the chance of the child being retarded etc. So let me get this straight. A baby, through no fault of their own, has to DIE because of something it has no control of? No, that’s a farce. It’s because women and men don’t want to be inconvenienced. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
Christ, through the Apostle Paul, told us to think of others before ourselves. He told us to be humble before God, and to lift those up who can’t do it themselves. I guess for some people that only includes the homeless, impoverished, unemployed, and those who suffer due to sexism, racism, and homophobia. It is disgusting that those same courtesies aren’t extended to the unborn. Treating people with contempt because of the aforementioned reasons is also disgusting, but they suffer only because they were allowed to be born. They have the ability to do something about their situation. The child that is murdered in the womb, half-way out, or even completely out don’t even get that chance. The absolutely horrifying and appalling thing is that “Christians” know what Jesus says yet they completely ignore it. How can “Christians” support people who are willing to destroy that which is “knit together in their mother’s womb” (paraphrased) as well as “fearfully and wonderfully made”? Simple: they don’t care. To take a stand would mean that they would have to forfeit friends, influence, and political affiliations. If they can’t even speak out and act for innocent babies, which they themselves once were, they need to quit calling themselves “Christians”.
I know no one is perfect, and I know that people suffer from their choices everyday. I am no different. I have had my share of sins and struggles, and if I said that I was purified of all my temptations then I would lying, and the truth would not be in me. However, to continue in horrible actions will bring terrifying consequences. Life is too fragile to sacrifice it on the altar of “freedom of choice”.
Now, I could appeal to all the other senses that would possibly change minds, but that would be futile because it would miss the mark. Why? Because those senses have been dulled almost to the point that they can’t be revived, and because it has nothing to do with synapses and emotions. It has to do with the heart. People who call themselves “Christians” can scoff at that if they want to. That’s fine with me. It’s their “choice”, but their bucket of choice won’t hold an ounce of exemption when it is placed on the scales of justice and mercy that belong to God. People can ignore it if they want to, but ignorance won’t be an excuse when we all give an account.
Our rights end where our responsibilities begin, and we have no greater responsibility than to protect the unborn. If you don’t want them, give them to me. I would rather spend my life broke and exhausted from work knowing that I provided for 100 kids who I helped save than to suffer the guilt and shame of being unrepentant over one life that I didn’t help give a chance at “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The last thing I would want to see when I stand before God are the faces of millions upon millions of babies who I had no desire to protect. It would be even sadder to hear them ask “why?” What will your answer be? Tears won’t cut it at that point. They will want an answer, and whether you like it or not you will have to give one.
Lastly, remember this: “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” Ronald Reagan said that. People can call him a dim-witted idiot, but at least he was right on one point: you can only support slaughter when you have that choice (i.e. when you have been born).
Note: If you don’t believe any of the details of abortion that I have mentioned above, or even stated about Obama they are easily found on the internet. Look them up. I dare you to take the chance on having your heart moved to and into change.
There is something else that puzzles me. How can people who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ (yeah, the dude who came to save EVERYONE) support politicians who think that it is okay to dismember babies while they are in the womb? Why do they kick and scream like petulant toddlers when the government doesn’t tax the rich enough and not go into a fit of holy rage when a doctor in Florida cuts the umbilical cord of a baby-one that has come out of the womb-and lets it bleed to death because of a mother’s “right to choose”? Where is their anger over the fact that a baby was murdered?
My bewilderment doesn’t stop there. It puzzles me more when I consider that “Christians” actually support a President who voted against the Born Alive Act. Excuse me. He abstained from voting on that one, which is just a disguise for cowardice and impotence. The Born Alive Act would have made it mandatory that doctors give immediate medical attention to babies who survive abortions. Obama, even while abstaining from voting, said that voting for it would harm a woman’s “right to choose” (i.e., it would be a stepping stone to over-turning Roe v. Wade). Hey, “Christians”. Where are you now? Did you know that? Of course you did. It was plastered all over the news!
It is estimated that between 40 and 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade was decided. Some people just pass by that number without so much as batting an eye. That sad fact reminds me of what Hitler said: the bigger the number the less likely people are to believe it. Let that sink in: 40 to 50 million babies have been butchered, dismembered, burned to death with saline, and had a tube rammed into the back of their heads with the express purpose of sucking out their brains all because it was determined that making abortion illegal infringed on a woman’s right to privacy. The support of abortion alone is disgusting, but it is even more abhorrent that Christians vote for politicians who support it!
I am also disgusted by politicians who say “I hate abortion, but it is the law of the land.” Tax evasion is also illegal, and they have no qualms about going after tax cheats, but stopping wholesale slaughter would step on the “right to choose”. Where in the world are our priorities? It is pathetic when money comes before innocent life. Wait a minute. I recall something about loving money being the root of ALL evil. Now I remember! Those were the words of Jesus. I guess those “Christians” over looked that verse.
The day my wife and I found out that we were having a baby girl we were told, very casually, that she had an issue that might cause cystic fibrosis. We were terrified. Our hearts sunk. What do you do in a situation like that? To be fair, while our doctor wasn’t all that emotionally supportive, she did encourage us by telling us that medical innovations had made it possible for people with cystic fibrosis to live fruitful lives as long as a.) It was caught early, and b.) It was treated effectively. That was somewhat relieving, but nothing could comfort our “what ifs”. But the part that struck me the most was that in situations like that people actually choose to kill their babies because they didn’t want them to suffer the potential possibility that they might live with a debilitating disease. They also choose to do the same when the baby is the result of a rape, incest, pre-marital sex, the chance of the child being retarded etc. So let me get this straight. A baby, through no fault of their own, has to DIE because of something it has no control of? No, that’s a farce. It’s because women and men don’t want to be inconvenienced. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
Christ, through the Apostle Paul, told us to think of others before ourselves. He told us to be humble before God, and to lift those up who can’t do it themselves. I guess for some people that only includes the homeless, impoverished, unemployed, and those who suffer due to sexism, racism, and homophobia. It is disgusting that those same courtesies aren’t extended to the unborn. Treating people with contempt because of the aforementioned reasons is also disgusting, but they suffer only because they were allowed to be born. They have the ability to do something about their situation. The child that is murdered in the womb, half-way out, or even completely out don’t even get that chance. The absolutely horrifying and appalling thing is that “Christians” know what Jesus says yet they completely ignore it. How can “Christians” support people who are willing to destroy that which is “knit together in their mother’s womb” (paraphrased) as well as “fearfully and wonderfully made”? Simple: they don’t care. To take a stand would mean that they would have to forfeit friends, influence, and political affiliations. If they can’t even speak out and act for innocent babies, which they themselves once were, they need to quit calling themselves “Christians”.
I know no one is perfect, and I know that people suffer from their choices everyday. I am no different. I have had my share of sins and struggles, and if I said that I was purified of all my temptations then I would lying, and the truth would not be in me. However, to continue in horrible actions will bring terrifying consequences. Life is too fragile to sacrifice it on the altar of “freedom of choice”.
Now, I could appeal to all the other senses that would possibly change minds, but that would be futile because it would miss the mark. Why? Because those senses have been dulled almost to the point that they can’t be revived, and because it has nothing to do with synapses and emotions. It has to do with the heart. People who call themselves “Christians” can scoff at that if they want to. That’s fine with me. It’s their “choice”, but their bucket of choice won’t hold an ounce of exemption when it is placed on the scales of justice and mercy that belong to God. People can ignore it if they want to, but ignorance won’t be an excuse when we all give an account.
Our rights end where our responsibilities begin, and we have no greater responsibility than to protect the unborn. If you don’t want them, give them to me. I would rather spend my life broke and exhausted from work knowing that I provided for 100 kids who I helped save than to suffer the guilt and shame of being unrepentant over one life that I didn’t help give a chance at “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The last thing I would want to see when I stand before God are the faces of millions upon millions of babies who I had no desire to protect. It would be even sadder to hear them ask “why?” What will your answer be? Tears won’t cut it at that point. They will want an answer, and whether you like it or not you will have to give one.
Lastly, remember this: “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” Ronald Reagan said that. People can call him a dim-witted idiot, but at least he was right on one point: you can only support slaughter when you have that choice (i.e. when you have been born).
Note: If you don’t believe any of the details of abortion that I have mentioned above, or even stated about Obama they are easily found on the internet. Look them up. I dare you to take the chance on having your heart moved to and into change.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
What is that smell?!
You get a whiff of that? It smells like...like...geez! What is that? Ah! I have figured it out. It's the Republican Party! The party that is asking its members to hold our nose and pull the lever for John McCain in November, but can true conservatives do that in good conscience? I am beginning to wonder if we can. To better help answer that question let's look at some of the stuff ole Johnny has done for us lately:
1.) The Almanac of American Politics says this about McCain's conservative vs. liberal voting record. Here is how they rated him in 2006- A. Economic = 64 percent conservative, 35 percent liberal. B. Social = 46 percent conservative, 53 percent liberal. C. Foreign = 58 percent conservative, 40 percent liberal. The American Conservative Union awarded McCain a lifetime rating of only 82 percent through 2007. 82 percent! And he calls himself a Reagan Conservative! What's odd, though, is that through the 107th Congress (2001-2003) he was placed as the 6th most liberal Republican senator! But in the 109th Congress (2005-2007) he was placed as the 2nd most conservative Republican Senator. Why the disparity? You think maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Presidential election was around the corner? Talk about lack of conviction!
2.) The McCain-Feingold Act is probably the most famous and high profile attack on American liberties he has ever done, if not the biggest one in the past 100 years! It was depicted in the media as an attack on "soft money" (money coming from corporations, unions, the wealthy etc), but in reality it has done the opposite. It told the American voter that you can't spend your money the way you want to. You can only give as much as we (the government) say you can. In fact, it has allowed pathetic human beings such as George Soros the chance to pump loads of money into "organizations" promoting liberalism without having to be prosecuted under McCain-Feingold! Again: a Reagan Conservative? I think not.
3.) He tried to pass immigration reform right under our noses that essentially said "screw what you want America! We will handle this!" He flat out ignored the American people, and he even had the nerve to scold us for it. To top it all off, he did this with Ted Kennedy. Why would anyone want to work with Tedt Kennedy? What has Ted Kennedy ever done with Republicans that didn't end up only benefiting the Democrats? The answer to that one is obvious.
McCain is only a "maverick" in the sense that the media loves the way he bucks the Republicans. He opposed tax cuts, then around election season he supported them. He wants illegals around, but then he says he has "heard" the American people, and has since decided he was wrong. Hey, Johnny, have you not been listening for the last several years? I do not want a maverick. I want a man of conviction who will attack the Democrats with all the might of the Republican Party. He and Obama are the same type of uniters: nonexistent ones. McCain has asked us all to accept the change in the Party, but WE don't want that change! He nor the leaders of the Party are listening to us due to their extreme arrogance, and they refuse to fight for us because they have a banana for a backbone. This will be disasterous for them if they don't wake up. We are headed for another Carter-esque administartion if the Party does not return to its roots that helped put a President in office, twice, with landslides. Reagan won because he "got" it. McCain does not.
Any man that tries to tell a state party to stop running an add that states the TRUTH about a political opponent is not worthy of loyalty (he did this to North Carolina). What makes him think he has that right? Why is HE not going after Obama? Why will HE not rush the Democrats and expose them for all that they are? Because He is practically one of them! With the exception of abortion and national defense, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between him and Clinton and Obama.
Johnny, some of my fellow conservatives may hold their breath and pull the lever for you, but do not mistake that for loyalty. That is simply their way of telling you and the Republican Party that they are giving you one in hopes you will do the same for them. For some reason I doubt you will.
As for me, I don't know yet. I have watched what he has done, and I have listened to what he has to say, and I am in no way ready to vote for him. In fact, the Party that I have been investigating is the Constitution Party, and thus far I am impressed. I voted for Bush with a grimace on my face, but this time I don't know if I can do it again. No more holding my nose; I like the smell of integrity and conviction better than I do the smell of a maverick.
1.) The Almanac of American Politics says this about McCain's conservative vs. liberal voting record. Here is how they rated him in 2006- A. Economic = 64 percent conservative, 35 percent liberal. B. Social = 46 percent conservative, 53 percent liberal. C. Foreign = 58 percent conservative, 40 percent liberal. The American Conservative Union awarded McCain a lifetime rating of only 82 percent through 2007. 82 percent! And he calls himself a Reagan Conservative! What's odd, though, is that through the 107th Congress (2001-2003) he was placed as the 6th most liberal Republican senator! But in the 109th Congress (2005-2007) he was placed as the 2nd most conservative Republican Senator. Why the disparity? You think maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Presidential election was around the corner? Talk about lack of conviction!
2.) The McCain-Feingold Act is probably the most famous and high profile attack on American liberties he has ever done, if not the biggest one in the past 100 years! It was depicted in the media as an attack on "soft money" (money coming from corporations, unions, the wealthy etc), but in reality it has done the opposite. It told the American voter that you can't spend your money the way you want to. You can only give as much as we (the government) say you can. In fact, it has allowed pathetic human beings such as George Soros the chance to pump loads of money into "organizations" promoting liberalism without having to be prosecuted under McCain-Feingold! Again: a Reagan Conservative? I think not.
3.) He tried to pass immigration reform right under our noses that essentially said "screw what you want America! We will handle this!" He flat out ignored the American people, and he even had the nerve to scold us for it. To top it all off, he did this with Ted Kennedy. Why would anyone want to work with Tedt Kennedy? What has Ted Kennedy ever done with Republicans that didn't end up only benefiting the Democrats? The answer to that one is obvious.
McCain is only a "maverick" in the sense that the media loves the way he bucks the Republicans. He opposed tax cuts, then around election season he supported them. He wants illegals around, but then he says he has "heard" the American people, and has since decided he was wrong. Hey, Johnny, have you not been listening for the last several years? I do not want a maverick. I want a man of conviction who will attack the Democrats with all the might of the Republican Party. He and Obama are the same type of uniters: nonexistent ones. McCain has asked us all to accept the change in the Party, but WE don't want that change! He nor the leaders of the Party are listening to us due to their extreme arrogance, and they refuse to fight for us because they have a banana for a backbone. This will be disasterous for them if they don't wake up. We are headed for another Carter-esque administartion if the Party does not return to its roots that helped put a President in office, twice, with landslides. Reagan won because he "got" it. McCain does not.
Any man that tries to tell a state party to stop running an add that states the TRUTH about a political opponent is not worthy of loyalty (he did this to North Carolina). What makes him think he has that right? Why is HE not going after Obama? Why will HE not rush the Democrats and expose them for all that they are? Because He is practically one of them! With the exception of abortion and national defense, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between him and Clinton and Obama.
Johnny, some of my fellow conservatives may hold their breath and pull the lever for you, but do not mistake that for loyalty. That is simply their way of telling you and the Republican Party that they are giving you one in hopes you will do the same for them. For some reason I doubt you will.
As for me, I don't know yet. I have watched what he has done, and I have listened to what he has to say, and I am in no way ready to vote for him. In fact, the Party that I have been investigating is the Constitution Party, and thus far I am impressed. I voted for Bush with a grimace on my face, but this time I don't know if I can do it again. No more holding my nose; I like the smell of integrity and conviction better than I do the smell of a maverick.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The wisdom of Wayne
My dad...what can you say about him? Well, you could say lots, but since I want to be decent I will refrain from saying some things. Last night my dad did something interesting. He looked at my step-mom, Paula, and told her, "now you can't be saying crap around my granddaughter; that wouldn't be proper." I laughed. This coming from a man who says some strange and outrageous things. So, I thought I might share some of them with you. I hope they have as big an impact on you as they have had on me:
* "There aint no grizzly bears in Cailifornia anymore. They're all Mexicans now."
* "I don't know why they call him 'father'. He (the pope) aint my father! God is my father!"
* "And a hooker to go!" Said at the McDonald's drive thru when the girl asked if we wanted anything else.
* "I don't want 'em spread up there. There's to many people on Clingman's dome. They might start choking on them." Telling us why he doesn't want his ashes spread there.
* "Surely you jest?" Said to a waitress when asked if he wanted dessert.
Those are just a few of the outlandish things he has said. I wish I had written all of them down throughout the years, but I still have time. This is also the man who holds the record for the most W-2's taken to the tax man at one time: 17. How does someone have 17 jobs in one fiscal year? The answer: only my father, Wayne Moore. That's all the explanation you need.
But in all seriousness, My dad's a cool fella'. He is always good for a laugh, and he has overcome a lot, which is a testament to what he's made of. But what I can't wait to see is how he relates to baby Claire. It brings joy to my heart just to see how his mood immediately changes when he talks about her. Pop Pop: that's what she's gonna call him...I can't wait to hear it.
* "There aint no grizzly bears in Cailifornia anymore. They're all Mexicans now."
* "I don't know why they call him 'father'. He (the pope) aint my father! God is my father!"
* "And a hooker to go!" Said at the McDonald's drive thru when the girl asked if we wanted anything else.
* "I don't want 'em spread up there. There's to many people on Clingman's dome. They might start choking on them." Telling us why he doesn't want his ashes spread there.
* "Surely you jest?" Said to a waitress when asked if he wanted dessert.
Those are just a few of the outlandish things he has said. I wish I had written all of them down throughout the years, but I still have time. This is also the man who holds the record for the most W-2's taken to the tax man at one time: 17. How does someone have 17 jobs in one fiscal year? The answer: only my father, Wayne Moore. That's all the explanation you need.
But in all seriousness, My dad's a cool fella'. He is always good for a laugh, and he has overcome a lot, which is a testament to what he's made of. But what I can't wait to see is how he relates to baby Claire. It brings joy to my heart just to see how his mood immediately changes when he talks about her. Pop Pop: that's what she's gonna call him...I can't wait to hear it.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dad-in-training #1
What does authenticity look like? Better yet, what does an authentic dad look like? That is a question that comes at me when I least expect it. Am I scared? Wonderfully so. I cannot wait for that moment when I hold little Claire for the first time, and then bring her home to see her room, and to meet Eli. But what do I do after that? What if I feed her wrong? What if I can't change her diaper properly (I am terrified of doing it!)? What if she cries and I can't tell what she wants? What if I can't afford to pay for her to go to college? What if I can't help her get a car? What if I get mad one day and say something rude and she decides to have nothing to do with me? What if I can't protect her? (Ya think I would be wrong to ask if I am going to be a basket-case?)
The truth is that I probably will mess up some of those things; scratch that-I will mess up some of those things. But what I want to be, more than anything, is an authentic dad. I want to be strong and gentle, humble yet proud. I want her to know she is safe with daddy no matter how old she is. I want her to see something in me that she wants for herself. But how in holy heck do I do all of this? Well, I think I finally got an answer. I am currently reading the book How to Hit a curve Ball, Grill the Perfect Steak, and Become a Real Man. I feel like I have forgotten so much of what I have already read, but today one short excerpt hit me like lightning striking my brain (movie? movie? any guesses?). The authors said that to have authentic relationships we need to recognize the many facets that help us to do that. The second one (there were 3) was that we need to recognize "more and more the profound work of Christ's resurrection in our lives, and our response to it." Wow. I have always been aware of what the resurrection means to me, but how I respond to it has never really hit me like that, but how do you "respond" to the resurrection?
Well, I went to my Bible, and as fate would have it I opened my Bible and saw my answer right before me. It comes from John 11:17-44. Lazarus is dead, and Jesus is on His way to see Mary and Martha so He can show them "the glory of God." Now, they are not aware of that, but what they didn't know didn't hurt them. The two sisters had very different responses. Martha ran to meet Jesus and basically got in His face asking where the heck He had been. But Mary stayed home. She came only after Jesus called for her. Martha seemed angry, and Mary seemed heart-broken; Martha was vocal, Mary was contemplative. Anger and tears can be a terrible combination but to Jesus that was perfectly fine.
He came to tell them that HE was the resurrection and the life. HE and He alone could show them the glory of God. Martha still questioned it, and Mary stood by silently, but through all of that Jesus still called Lazarus out. And Lazarus came...bringing all 4 days worth of silent-but-deadly stench along with him. See, I realize now that Jesus just doesn't give me life when I believe just as He promised Martha (vs. 25-26), but He calls my stink out with Him. Like Martha, I can believe that and still doubt, but that doesn't stop the work of the resurrection and the life within me. Christ takes my stink and calls me out of it whether I am aware of it or not, and if I forget that I will get lost in the journey of fatherhood.
What's so great about this? That I stink and Jesus loves me anyway...just like Claire will, and I will certainly give the same to her. Since I have the resurrection and the life in me I can always have hope that things that seem to die can be brought back to life. That's good news.
The truth is that I probably will mess up some of those things; scratch that-I will mess up some of those things. But what I want to be, more than anything, is an authentic dad. I want to be strong and gentle, humble yet proud. I want her to know she is safe with daddy no matter how old she is. I want her to see something in me that she wants for herself. But how in holy heck do I do all of this? Well, I think I finally got an answer. I am currently reading the book How to Hit a curve Ball, Grill the Perfect Steak, and Become a Real Man. I feel like I have forgotten so much of what I have already read, but today one short excerpt hit me like lightning striking my brain (movie? movie? any guesses?). The authors said that to have authentic relationships we need to recognize the many facets that help us to do that. The second one (there were 3) was that we need to recognize "more and more the profound work of Christ's resurrection in our lives, and our response to it." Wow. I have always been aware of what the resurrection means to me, but how I respond to it has never really hit me like that, but how do you "respond" to the resurrection?
Well, I went to my Bible, and as fate would have it I opened my Bible and saw my answer right before me. It comes from John 11:17-44. Lazarus is dead, and Jesus is on His way to see Mary and Martha so He can show them "the glory of God." Now, they are not aware of that, but what they didn't know didn't hurt them. The two sisters had very different responses. Martha ran to meet Jesus and basically got in His face asking where the heck He had been. But Mary stayed home. She came only after Jesus called for her. Martha seemed angry, and Mary seemed heart-broken; Martha was vocal, Mary was contemplative. Anger and tears can be a terrible combination but to Jesus that was perfectly fine.
He came to tell them that HE was the resurrection and the life. HE and He alone could show them the glory of God. Martha still questioned it, and Mary stood by silently, but through all of that Jesus still called Lazarus out. And Lazarus came...bringing all 4 days worth of silent-but-deadly stench along with him. See, I realize now that Jesus just doesn't give me life when I believe just as He promised Martha (vs. 25-26), but He calls my stink out with Him. Like Martha, I can believe that and still doubt, but that doesn't stop the work of the resurrection and the life within me. Christ takes my stink and calls me out of it whether I am aware of it or not, and if I forget that I will get lost in the journey of fatherhood.
What's so great about this? That I stink and Jesus loves me anyway...just like Claire will, and I will certainly give the same to her. Since I have the resurrection and the life in me I can always have hope that things that seem to die can be brought back to life. That's good news.
I Survived Roe vs. Wade
Did you know that from the day Reagan was inaugurated up until September 11, 2001 more than 29,796,700 abortions occured? Better yet, do you realize that between those years almost 30,000,000 souls were denied the chance to have at least one day on this earth? Also, were you aware that between 1980 and 2000 nearly 3 of every 11 pregnancies were terminated? This is what liberals and nazi feminists refer to as 'a woman's right to choose". All of this amounts to the fact that about a fourth of an entire generation, my generation, of human beings had their lives extinguished because they were considered an inconvenience.
Want to think of this in a different way? Well how about this: the liberal establishment, along with some sad conservatives, have the blood of more innocent human beings on their hands than Hitler and Stalin COMBINED! That's right, the most advanced civilization in history makes Hitler and Stalin look like choir boys. That is a holocaust, that is genocide. And liberals call themselves compassionate and diverse? The debate over abortion (if you can even call it a debate), regardless of what many folks say, is not about defining life. It comes down to one question: is there any value in a human life at all?
Alas, all is not lost! The generation responsible for this mass murder is dying off. Call me sick but sometimes those that lead others down the road of destruction must die off so those of us who follow them can repave it with honor, dignity, civility, faith, hope, and love. More and more of those of us born in the late 70's, 80's, and 90's are becoming more and more conservative. While liberals want to hide this fact, the light of the truth is begining to shine through (I will provide the source of all my info at the end of this post. For those of you doubters every bit of this info is painstakingly backed up by legitimate sources. Which means that Dan Rather and the New York Times were not cited). Poll after poll backs up these truths.
Lastly, let me help you come up with a way to help in speeding up the process of a rebirth of true conservatism: get married and have lots of babies. The more children we have the quicker we will outnumber the liberal pro choicers. Our generation is a patriotic generation that knows the importance of thinking for itself, but we also understand that if we do not reclaim our country based on Christ and His principles then we are destined for failure. But I have hope. Polls and facts comfort me, but more importanly Scripture comforts me. Let us determine to appeal to men's hearts, let us preach truth, optimism, hope, and in the process watch miracles be performed. Forget the words "can't", "hopeless", "fear", "surrender". Move and take up residence in that "shining city on a hill" and watch great things happen! Thanks for your time. Later on.
My Source: Reagan's Children: Taking Back The City On The Hill. Hans Zeiger, 2006
Want to think of this in a different way? Well how about this: the liberal establishment, along with some sad conservatives, have the blood of more innocent human beings on their hands than Hitler and Stalin COMBINED! That's right, the most advanced civilization in history makes Hitler and Stalin look like choir boys. That is a holocaust, that is genocide. And liberals call themselves compassionate and diverse? The debate over abortion (if you can even call it a debate), regardless of what many folks say, is not about defining life. It comes down to one question: is there any value in a human life at all?
Alas, all is not lost! The generation responsible for this mass murder is dying off. Call me sick but sometimes those that lead others down the road of destruction must die off so those of us who follow them can repave it with honor, dignity, civility, faith, hope, and love. More and more of those of us born in the late 70's, 80's, and 90's are becoming more and more conservative. While liberals want to hide this fact, the light of the truth is begining to shine through (I will provide the source of all my info at the end of this post. For those of you doubters every bit of this info is painstakingly backed up by legitimate sources. Which means that Dan Rather and the New York Times were not cited). Poll after poll backs up these truths.
Lastly, let me help you come up with a way to help in speeding up the process of a rebirth of true conservatism: get married and have lots of babies. The more children we have the quicker we will outnumber the liberal pro choicers. Our generation is a patriotic generation that knows the importance of thinking for itself, but we also understand that if we do not reclaim our country based on Christ and His principles then we are destined for failure. But I have hope. Polls and facts comfort me, but more importanly Scripture comforts me. Let us determine to appeal to men's hearts, let us preach truth, optimism, hope, and in the process watch miracles be performed. Forget the words "can't", "hopeless", "fear", "surrender". Move and take up residence in that "shining city on a hill" and watch great things happen! Thanks for your time. Later on.
My Source: Reagan's Children: Taking Back The City On The Hill. Hans Zeiger, 2006
Munich 2008
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
Four of the most arrogant and presumptious words ever spoken. I mean, they are right up there with "we the jury find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty." Chalk it up to ignorance? No, that would be an insult to the intelligence of stupid people around the globe. To me, those words can be chalked up to being blind even though the people who spoke them could see. Reality, to those people, was irrelevant. Idealsim and fantasy ruled the day, not facts and history.
Now, don't get me wrong; I believe that we all should be idealistic, especially when freedom and peace are at stake, but idealism based on pacifism is national suicide. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister in 1938, signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler which split Czechoslovakia up into a few pieces. What right they had to do this, I do not know. There were no people there to represent the Czechs, but still the Germans, British, French, and Italians decided to appease Hitler and "give" him the one last piece of land that he wanted. Hitler took the deal, and Chamberlain got him to sign a peace treaty before he went on his merry way back to London. The Czechs were left scratching their heads as to why they had been abandoned as European pacifists smiled while sipping fancy champagne.
Chamberlian and his cronies acted like Woodrow Wilson in assuming that they had the power and right to split apart countries. Simply put, they were the ancestors of today's liberals. Almost 70 years later we have a midget madman in Iran saying the same things that the midget from Germany said, and no one seems to be paying any attention. Obama, the messiah for so many liberals, says that he would rather “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” than stop a pyscho in his tracks. If he were elected (pray he isn't) he better be prepared to apologize to the families of millions of Jews who will be wiped out by Iran, which is exactly what Iran's leader has said he will do. Action requires one to be decisive, and Obama is decisive only when it suits his political interests (i.e, Jeremiah Wright). The best way to sustain peace is to prepare for war whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
I have no doubt Obama would have been cheering on the tarmac as Chamberlain waved his little paper saying "peace for our time." Well, that agreement on paper went up in smoke, just like the millions of Jews who died due to Chamberlain's penchant for pacifism. The blood of millions was on his hands, and in my opinion it still is. It took the British bringing in Churchill, after they had disgraced him, for them to regain a fighting spirit. We need the same in this country. We need someone who can bust a head just as good, if not better than they can negotiate peace, and be willing to do it.
This is not about racism. It is about reality, and the reality of the situation is that this world, especially our country is headed for a major catastrophe if Barack Hussein Obama is elected. His rhetoric is just that: empty words with no substance behind it. We do not need him running things. Keep him out of it or we are in for it!
Four of the most arrogant and presumptious words ever spoken. I mean, they are right up there with "we the jury find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty." Chalk it up to ignorance? No, that would be an insult to the intelligence of stupid people around the globe. To me, those words can be chalked up to being blind even though the people who spoke them could see. Reality, to those people, was irrelevant. Idealsim and fantasy ruled the day, not facts and history.
Now, don't get me wrong; I believe that we all should be idealistic, especially when freedom and peace are at stake, but idealism based on pacifism is national suicide. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister in 1938, signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler which split Czechoslovakia up into a few pieces. What right they had to do this, I do not know. There were no people there to represent the Czechs, but still the Germans, British, French, and Italians decided to appease Hitler and "give" him the one last piece of land that he wanted. Hitler took the deal, and Chamberlain got him to sign a peace treaty before he went on his merry way back to London. The Czechs were left scratching their heads as to why they had been abandoned as European pacifists smiled while sipping fancy champagne.
Chamberlian and his cronies acted like Woodrow Wilson in assuming that they had the power and right to split apart countries. Simply put, they were the ancestors of today's liberals. Almost 70 years later we have a midget madman in Iran saying the same things that the midget from Germany said, and no one seems to be paying any attention. Obama, the messiah for so many liberals, says that he would rather “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” than stop a pyscho in his tracks. If he were elected (pray he isn't) he better be prepared to apologize to the families of millions of Jews who will be wiped out by Iran, which is exactly what Iran's leader has said he will do. Action requires one to be decisive, and Obama is decisive only when it suits his political interests (i.e, Jeremiah Wright). The best way to sustain peace is to prepare for war whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
I have no doubt Obama would have been cheering on the tarmac as Chamberlain waved his little paper saying "peace for our time." Well, that agreement on paper went up in smoke, just like the millions of Jews who died due to Chamberlain's penchant for pacifism. The blood of millions was on his hands, and in my opinion it still is. It took the British bringing in Churchill, after they had disgraced him, for them to regain a fighting spirit. We need the same in this country. We need someone who can bust a head just as good, if not better than they can negotiate peace, and be willing to do it.
This is not about racism. It is about reality, and the reality of the situation is that this world, especially our country is headed for a major catastrophe if Barack Hussein Obama is elected. His rhetoric is just that: empty words with no substance behind it. We do not need him running things. Keep him out of it or we are in for it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
