Wednesday, December 22, 2004


Every year around this time, it's the same old thing:
Christmas becomes a referendum on Religion, Government,
Free Speech, Truth, the Constitution, and TOLERANCE.
It seems the Secular Humanists and Liberal Freethinkers
have stepped up their offensives this year, as the cacophony
over CHRISTMAS – with its patently “religious” themes –
has reached something of a fever pitch...

I'm not an Attorney, nor a "real" Philosopher, and I don't
pretend to be an expert on interpreting the Constitution
of the United States; I also do not have an Historian’s
grasp of the evolution of CHRISTMAS over the years...

But I feel compelled to publish a few thoughts relating to
the fact that the nearly 2000-year-old Tradition of celebrating
the birth of Jesus has, in modern times, morphed into yet
another fierce political struggle in this country, adding to
the din in the Public Square over “religion”, Free Speech,
and the political “greased pig”, Tolerance...

I’ll do this by gathering my comments around four words:
Democracy, Fairness, Segregation, and Eternity…

Democracy defines “Democracy” as (paraphrasing)
a system of representative government driven by the
Rule of the Majority. This is precisely what we have in
America, and the recent “Red State / Blue State” elections
make this concept graphically clear.

The framers of the Constitution had the Church of England
in mind when they wrote the infamous First Amendment,
intending to prevent the Federal government from
ESTABLISHING an "official" religion AND to prevent the
squelching of any EXPRESSION of religion by the Citizenship.

But when the will of the Majority (Democracy) effectively
prohibits the “speech” of the Minority (Free Expression),
and when Government appears to be endorsing one viewpoint
over others, what is a Citizen to do?

Here’s an idea: Get Out The Vote. Even local governments
(states, counties, municipalities, sheriffs, mayors, etc.)
are all ELECTED by the will of the people. Citizens have
a good deal of power in deciding who governs them (and how)
on the Local level; Democracy is a hands-on effort that
allows voters to affect CHANGE in what goes on in
the politics of our communities.

Where did the idea come from that says that governments
(and school boards and county courts and mayors’ offices, etc.)
need to – MUST! – at all times demonstrate “Fairness” in the
Public Square? Who made the Public Square a political
“pageant” of Faiths, World Views, and Political Agendas?

The Secular Humanists, the Liberal Democrats, the Atheists
and Agnostics, and all of similar persuasions, have gotten a
good bit of Media exposure with what amounts to WHINING
over these issues; at CHRISTMAS time, the Whining grows
loudest as they protest figurines of the Baby Jesus on the lawns
of local government buildings, police stations, etc…

But if local officials are elected by the local Majority, shouldn’t
the Will of that local Majority prevail? If MOST of the citizens
in County “X” want to see Baby Jesus at CHRISTMAS time
on the lawn of the county courthouse, where do we get this
silly notion that “offending” the detractors creates a political
mandate to censor the Majority?

Someone may reply, “Fine, but what would you do if the Majority
changed their affections and suddenly YOU were the Minority?
What would you do then? Do you want to see (protected) displays
of Satan worship on the county courthouse property?”

I will tell you: I would work very hard, locally, to prevent such a
state of affairs, but if it did come to be, I would either find it
within myself to “tolerate” my environment as I continued to
work toward Change, OR, I would MOVE and find communities
that DO reflect my Values and Beliefs.

There is, for example, a school board in the upper Northwest,
I’m told, that is FORCING students to take a class in Islam,
complete with required Muslim clothing and "mock" prayers
to Mecca 5 times a day...

I would not stand for that; I would pull my kids from that school
in a New York Minute (after attempting to persuade the local
school board to reverse that biased policy).

I’m sure most parents would do the same. And I’ve been a bit
amused by reports that a large number of Kerry supporters are,
or are seriously considering, moving to Canada in the wake of
this past election…

And there are efforts all around us to promote one Agenda
over another: Consider this story, about a young feller who
feels he must worship Satan:

And of course, the so-called “Religious Right” is, in my opinion,
under heavy attack these days:

So what, then? Are we becoming a nation rushing toward
deep divisions – SEGREGATION – into “Red vs. Blue” regions,
and into factionalized states, counties, even neighborhoods,
along the lines of collective Values and Beliefs?

It seems obvious that we are already far down that road…

As a Christian, I am very concerned about the danger
of placing too much emphasis on political “victories”.
Even IF we believe that traditional, Judeo-Christian values
are the foundation of our country and the basis of our
system of laws (and that’s a VERY big “if”), we must
continually ask ourselves, what are we GAINING by
aggressively pursuing political causes that only alienate
the World and make the message of Jesus even more
repugnant to those who need to SEE it in us?

It only adds to the problem when Christians, rebuffed in
the political arena, then turn around and say of their
political opponents, "they're just rejecting Christ!"...

Injecting GOD into the Public Square does nothing to advance
the Great Commission nor the Great Commandment:
Jesus did not say, "Go ye therefore and form
Political Action Committees and get George Bush elected",
nor did Jesus say "Love the Constitution with all your heart
and soul and mind..."

What are we so AFRAID of? Why waste time and money
exploiting Politics, printing Tracts, fighting on Talk Radio, and
commandeering School Board meetings (among other things)
in some "fight" against "The World" when those fights DESSIMATE
the Love we are supposed to share, even in politics?

You don't BLUDGEON someone into considering Jesus,
and you don't shove a Tract in their hands and shout, "Trust Jesus!"
over your shoulder as you run as fast as you can the other direction...

We need to return to a focus on ETERNAL Values. Sure, we ought
to be involved in political efforts, but as good stewards, rendering to
Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, and all with an attitude of Worship
toward God and Love toward our fellow men…

And we accomplish the MOST through respectful, intelligent, patient
conversations (perhaps over coffee, perhaps over a nice dinner)
in which we plant the seed of Truth and then pray that the Holy Spirit
waters the seed…

In the end, this old World (left to itself) will never understand the Faith.
Attempts to coerce familiarity will only breed contempt, and the truths
of Christianity will only seem foolish to those who are perishing
(1 Cor. 1:18,21,23,25).

Into this cacophony steps JESUS: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...
Prince of Peace... (Isaiah 9).

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Only ONE "Truth"?

As mentioned in a previous article, modern thinking
HATES the "Exclusivity" of the Christian message:
That Jesus Christ is the one and only way for Mankind
to be reconciled to God. The popular mindset of
Postmodernism says, as Oprah Winfrey said to a Christian
guest of hers recently, "I'm fine with your faith statements
as long as you don't say YOUR faith is 'true' and MY faith
is 'false' "...

But notice the fundamental Presupposition that is at
the heart of this mindset (which, by the way, is something
I think most of modern society "feels" more than "thinks"):
There Can Be No "One Truth".

Not only is THIS, itself, a Truth Statement, but it denies
outright its opposite, that there just very well MAY be
"One Truth" which applies to all people everywhere.
A legitimate Quest for Truth must not begin by presupposing
its conclusions...

So it would seem that even the Postmodernist wants to talk
about "Truth" in absolute terms. OK, fine, so the next
question usually is, how then can any ONE individual arrive
at "Truth"? Volumes have been written by thousands of thinkers
over thousands of years on this philosophical subject, of course,
and a serious Quest for Truth takes most of us a lifetime;
but consider this:

MOST of what we assert to be "True" is based on three things:
Reason (is the statement Reasonable; does it "hold water"
Logically), Authority (does the person making the statement
have the Credentials and Credibility to do so), and
Eye Witness accounts (what did the person making the statement
SEE or HEAR or TOUCH). Using these rudimentary tools, we
follow the EVIDENCE (the sum total of the three) until we
reach a point of, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (as in court).

When we have arrived at "Truth", using these methods, most
of us continue to examine our Case, looking for holes,
building support for the weak spots, and being willing to modify
parts of the Case when better Evidence presents itself.
But having done so, we become far more comfortable using the word
"Truth" because we've actually DONE some "homework" on the issue...

So what is at the heart of Postmodernism's loosely-held
belief -- their "truth statement" -- that There Can Be No
"One Truth"? Well, in addition to the probability that
most modern "thinkers" have not actually gone to the trouble
of researching and solidifying their World View (the Media
are among the most vocal preachers of today's "Collective Relativity"),
I believe it has to do with three things:

1. They do not realize that the very ACT of believing
"X" to be TRUE must mean, then, that its exact opposite,
"Y", is FALSE. You simply can NOT believe that two
absolutely OPPOSED positions might BOTH be true; and...

2. ...they are uncomfortable with this, because it begins to
fly in the face of their basic "truth statement" (i.e.,
There Can Be No "One Truth"). Quite simply, they lack the
Courage to stand up and say to anyone else, "You are Wrong".
They call that kind of stance "Extremism", a charge which
carries a lot of weight in a post-9/11 world...

3. But I believe the REAL reason is this: Postmodernists know
in their hearts that a real BELIEF in a real God (who really
has put His moral law inside us and will hold us Accountable)
would mean that they must set aside their own agendas and
pursuits of pleasure and/or fulfillment and focus instead on
worshipping this God and obeying His Will.

In a word, they are UNWILLING to do this. The first sin in
the history of the Universe, committed by Lucifer, was PRIDE:
"Not Thy Will but MINE be Done..." And it is this "back that
breaks but never bends" which constitutes the basis of the
assertion that "There Can Be No 'One Truth' ", because One Truth
means Obligation, a bowing-down, a yielding of an assumed
"right" to determine "one's own truth".

Even Christians must "die" every single day to this natural desire
to assert one's own will over the Will of God. With the help and work
of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we Christians are all a "work in progress".
Who does the Postmodernist have to help him?

And is banking EVERYTHING on the weak assertions of Relative Truth
worth the RISK if, in the end, they're proved horribly WRONG??

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The Exclusivity of the Faith

Those of us who are Christians are beginning, more and more,
to experience the same kind of Hatred to the fundamental
message of our Faith that our Founder did:

Jesus Himself claimed, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
no man comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6),
and again, "...he that has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

And His disciples knew immediately, after Jesus ascended to
heaven, the central theme of their calling: "...there is no other name
under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

The Jewish leadership of Jesus' time, and the civil leadership under
which most of the Church has lived for the last 2000 years, HATED
what our World today HATES MOST about Christianity:
The Exclusivity of the message.

Jesus' Jewish contemporaries snorted with indignation as the son
(rumored to be illegitimate) of a poor carpenter, from regions outside
of Jerusalem, rose in that city and claimed to be GOD, and to be
the Only Way of Salvation for all men.

At Pentecost and beyond, many ofthe earliest members of the Church
were routinely persecuted and even murdered (some in the most
gruesome fashion) for expressing the same kind of "Intolerance".

And there is nothing that the World of today HATES more about the
Christian faith than this same position of Exclusivity. "Who are you
to say that Jesus is the 'only' way to God?" they demand. "We all
must find our OWN 'truth' " they say, "there IS no 'One Way' "...

It does no good to share Bible verses with someone repulsed by
The Message. Indeed, Our Lord Himself was abused, beaten, tortured,
and finally brutally murdered for insisting He was the ONLY Way to God.

It is only in the power of the Ressurection that Jesus' claim as the
Only Way comes raging back as indeed THE TRUTH. Not only is the
literal Ressurection of Christ a matter of historical record (and how many
other "ways" to God feature their Founder rising from the dead???),
but it is still relevant in the experience of every single Sinner who
comes to the point of accepting Jesus:

The Bible says we were all "dead" in our sins until we were "raised"
to New Life in Jesus Christ: SALVATION! And not just TO God, but
also FROM OURSELVES (and from our "own truth").

Until a person realizes just how desparately they need fixing, there
is no point in discussing broken-ness. You don't often find a person recoiling
against the singularity of Jesus' message AFTER they've laid down their
weapons and have come to understand just how deep and how profound
their Sinfulness is; no, those reactions come only from a mindset that believes,
deeply, that there are many "ways" to God, and that any one of us can
pick-and-choose what "our way" should be...

Osama bin Laden shares this belief: He and his terrorist cohorts sincerely
believe that God is inspiring their murderous hearts, and that their networks
of Evil are God's tools to carry out His will. They each believe they will be rewarded
in Heaven with any of a number of things (7 virgins, etc.).

We may very well be entering a period in human history where Western Civilisation
begins experiencing the kinds of persecution of Christians that has gone on in
Eastern countries for hundreds and hundreds of years. The fuel of that HATRED
will stem from our refusal to temper the central theme of our Faith:

Jesus Christ -- God, born of a virgin, lived the first and only sinless life, was murdered
and yet rose again, and whose Blood satisfies God's righteous requirements -- is in fact
the ONLY way back TO God. All other ground is sinking sand...

Friday, November 12, 2004

Thoughts on Arafat's passing

I won't pretend to know a whole lot when it comes to
the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in the Middle East;
known Terrorists seem to side with the Palestinians, and
civilized nations (such as the USA) seem to side with
Israel; that should tell us all a LOT about who's
"right" and who's "wrong" in that conflict...

Another thing seems clear: Israel clearly has the FAR
greater Military power; if they wanted to, I suppose they
could quickly eliminate all of Palestine from the face
of the Earth, and end the conflict with brute force.
They've chosen not to, and are, instead, the victims of
relentless bombings by the PLO and other terrorist
organizations. Again, what does that tell us about who
is "right" and who is wrong?

Instead, I'll let the two sides do their own talking:
(Copy-n-Paste these links into your Web browser, then hit ENTER)...

Here's a link to an organization critical of Arafat:
And here is a link to an article by Paul Findley, known in Congress
as "the friend of Arafat":

CONCLUSION: As with all other matters, GOD will
sort out the Right and Wrong, in the end, and everybody
will get what they have coming to them...

Why Kerry Lost

With all the post-mortem analysis going on of the
defeat of John Kerry in this past election, I thought
I'd toss out some thoughts of my own...

Here are a few reasons why I believe Kerry lost:

1. Both parties took BIG money from corporations,
so Kerry couldn't really hit on that; job growth during
the first Bush administration was (and is) a matter
of debate; and ANY President can only do so much
to stimulate the Economy... But this President understands
far better than Kerry that the more the government
gets OUT OF THE WAY, and the more TAX RELIEF
that can be established, the more SMALL BUSINESSES
can start and thrive. The secret to a growing economy
is Small Business, and Kerry failed to emphasize that
fact nearly as much as President Bush did.

2. I'm not too keen on the idea of "Moral Values"
becoming a political issue, and the Press has had a party
with this ever since it became an Exit Poll statistic.
But the fact that Americans -- by the millions! --
voted for President Bush with Moral Values in mind,
shows how deeply concerned Americans STILL are about
issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage, and how much
they STILL think that Character matters. Kerry
was viewed by these voters as a Liar, a Clinton-esque
Slippery Snake, and as having no solid Core of beliefs
which go beyond one's own limited mind and which
rise above MTV, fads and trends, polls, and reality TV shows.
The plain fact of the matter is that EVERYONE has
a World View -- a RELIGION -- that guides their actions
and policies and decisions; apparently American voters
prefer the President's Theistic World View over Kerry's
Humanistic (i.e., Man-centered) World View.
It's that simple.

3. In their gut, nearly 60 million American voters despised
the Intellectual SNOBBERY of Kerry and Edwards, and of
the Upper North East and West Coast regions that think
like they do; 60 million Voters used their ballots to strike back.
Apparently these two "emperors" could not see that they had
no clothes, and the only ones impressed by their pomp
and presumption were themselves and their high-minded
constituents. I read today a comment by a democratic party
analyst that Kerry was "much more intellectual" than
President Bush...

Let's break that down for a minute: How would someone
MEASURE that? What does a silly statement like that even
mean? It's clear that Kerry was a more accomplished
public speaker than the President, and that he wasn't
prone to the same kind of "creativeness" with the English
language that the President is... But most of us know SOMEONE
(a friend, a brother, a father-in-law) who is perhaps a "blue collar worker"
and/or who has never been to college, but who is intelligent,
smart-as-a-whip, and worldly-wise; someone who knows when
to fight (and HOW!) and when to yield, someone who works
hard, who is strong (mentally, emotionally, and physically),
and who is tough, respectful, honest, and consistent...

The only thing that person "lacks" -- in this context -- is the
spit-n-polish, Ivy-league school VENEER that Kerry displays...

This, then, is "Intellect"?? The country would obviously rather have
a candidate more like the former and less like the latter...

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Values, Truth, and Tolerance

Without a doubt, the world of Political Commentary
is absolutely BUZZING right now over the emerging
Theme of the election: MORAL VALUES.

While "Morality" and "Values" can be dangerous political
fodder, it's GREAT to watch as people everywhere are
having discussions (some polite, some not) over the most
important considerations of human existence.

But what do these words mean? Whose "values"?
"Truth" according to whom? Why is it that the "Red"
states are quickly being cast as the "moral value" states
while the "Blue" states are being characterized by some as...
well, what?

Here is one person's commentary:

VALUES might be things like Hard Work, Equality,
Thrift, and Responsibility. Certainly the "Red" states
have no corner on these Values; but when you add
the adjective "Moral" to the word "Values", the
combination takes on a whole new twist:

Now you're talking about Values which are viewed as "Right"
or "Wrong"; so, for example, in W, you have a President
who VALUES the One-Man-One-Woman institution
of Marriage, because he believes it's RIGHT and that
any perversion of that arrangement is WRONG.

And while he may VALUE civil rights granted by some
consitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court,
his MORAL VALUE on, say, Abortion is that it is
(in nearly all cases) WRONG.

But where do assessments of "Right" and "Wrong"
come from?? And who are we to make them??

Well, it depends on what you believe; it depends on what
you have come to accept as the TRUTH.

If you believe the Bible, you will view its contents as
the TRUTH; the same can be said of the Torah, the Koran,
and any other sacred writings of your World View.

But it doesn't stop there: MUCH of what we assert to be
"TRUTH" we accept on the authority of the Source from which
we discover that Truth: Astronomers tell us the Sun is 93 million
miles from Earth; I assert this to be "True" because I accept
their authority. I could, if I chose, launch an investigation into
the facts and attempt to ascertain for myself if that is
the case, but I don't because I'm satisfied with their authority.

The "Search for Truth" is something many of us have done -- or
still do! -- with as much vigor and curiosity as we can muster,
and some of us are very open-minded to just about any serious,
plausible Viewpoints out there...

But there is an important point to make here, and it regards what
is sometimes referred to as "EXCLUSIONISM":

If you regard position "X" as being absolutely TRUE, then you,
by definition, regard it's exact opposite, say, position "Y", to be
absolutely FALSE. The human mind simply cannot hold two
diametrically-opposed positions to BOTH be true at the same time
(a room cannot be completely DARK and completely LIT at the
same time...).

Does this make you "exclusive"?? Of course not! You've arrived
at "X" because you've done your research, inquired into all the
authoritative resources you can find, granted that some of "X"
sounds a little fantastic, and yet you've still come out in the end
convinced (by Reason, by Authority, and by Eye Witness Accounts)
that "X" is TRUE and "Y" is FALSE.

A man like George W. Bush is not afraid to stand up and say
publicly that he believes ONE thing to be TRUE and another to be
FALSE. That kind of courage, applied to traditional Moral Values,
is what the Electorate saw in him this past Tuesday.

One more point:
Every single human on this planet is a sentient being whom God
loves and cherishes with all His heart. Unfortunately, most of them
will not choose to love Him in return, and will spurn His Will for them
in favor of their own. "Tolerance", for the Christian, does NOT mean
viewing Abortion or Homosexuality with anything less than God's
own righteous anger; it means demonstrating Warmth, Compassion,
and Caring to those around us who, apart from God, will NEVER
experience the Joy and Fulfillment He made them for...

A NOTE about the VOTE

Well, my candidate won on November 2.
My choice for Governor of Missouri won too,
so for me, it was a good night.

Here is an assortment of thoughts about what
transpired in our country in this election:

1. I was very very happy to see that the winner
became clear in only a day and a half or so. A process
that dragged out into days and weeks -- as in 2000 --
would have been very hard on this country.

2. I believe John Kerry demonstrated a lot of grace
and dignity in his concession of the race; I was surprised
and glad to see that. The same cannot be said for his
running mate, John Edwards; comments like, "this fight
will go on!" seemed very anti-climactic...

3. I thought one of the most fascinating statistics to
come out of the voting activity, all across the coutry, on
November 2 was the fact that -- according to Exit Polls --
fully 22% of the respondents said MORAL VALUES
was their top voting concern this election (of those, 84%
voted for President Bush). Interesting! I was thrilled
to see that that particular dynamic was high on the minds
of voters; seems the Media and Radical Left-Wingers
are out of touch with an Electorate that cares about
the MOST important things...

4. Some quick messages go out to various people/groups:

Michael Moore: Apparently getting "creative" with the Truth
did little to fool the voting public...

New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, Oprah Winfrey,
Al Sharpton, and any and all other LIBERAL public figures
and Media outlets: Popular Vote AND the Presidency!
Need we say more?? Is it possible that these entities are
simply Out Of Touch?? This is relevant not just because
President Bush won in both categories, but because (again)
the Exit Poll data show that your Leftist views are shared
by FAR LESS of the Electorate than you try to lead us all
to believe...

5. On that last point, I have always believed that it is largely
some of the mainstream Media and a host of liberal Public Figures
who incessantly beat the drums of DIVISION in this country.
I believe that any two intelligent, rational adults can sit down
and discuss even the most divisive of issues (e.g., Abortion)
without becoming hateful toward one another. We are characterized
too often by the Media as being "anti-" this or "anti-" that, and
images we are shown on TV and in the magazines only include
the extremists among us who are mostly full of Hate.

"Speaking the Truth in LOVE" needs to become not just a
Christian mantra, but a manner of behaving toward one another
REGARDLESS of where we each fall on the political spectrum...

Monday, October 25, 2004

Add Your Comments!

We welcome your Feedback!

Feel free to post your own Comments
by clicking on the "COMMENT" link at
the bottom right corner of each posting...

You don't need to add your name, since
postings by "Anonymous" are allowed...

Go ahead! Post your replies to our Musings here...
Opinions, thoughts, responses, etc., from ALL
sides of the spectrum are encouraged!

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Deflating Kerry

It can be frustrating for us Republicans to hear
the President out on the stump each day (and in
the now-infamous debates) leave SO much good material
"on the table" with regard to Kerry's attacks.

So HERE (since this is my li'l old Blog) I am going
to take the opportunity to make a few quick points
that apparently President Bush's campaign manager
isn't having his man trumpet far and wide:

The President has NOT "taken his eye off the ball".
While I agree that the push into Iraq was probably premature,
and (in hindsight) based on weak intelligence, the plain fact
of the matter is that this is a war on TERRORISM, not on
Osama Bin Laden or any other single terrorist. President Bush
was given information that led him (and Tony Blair, AND the
US Congress, including John Kerry!) to believe that Iraq
was the hub of a dangerous mixture of Terrorists and WMD.
An *excellent* target, then, for an attack, don't you think??

Even though the search for WMD proved fruitless, it's STILL
true that there is an epicenter of terrorist movement in that
entire region: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, and
even Saudi Arabia (you could include Egypt, Sudan, and even
Palestine, too).

So I wish the President would tear down Kerry's straw-man
argument, about "the hunt for Bin Laden" and REMIND America
that the fight against TERRORISM has ALWAYS included Iraq.

Yes it's messy over there; and YES we probably underestimated
our enemy there; but with people like Kerry voting AGAINST
funding for additional supplies, what's a President to do???
And now is the time for steel-jawed Resolve, not Fear-mongering.

Oh, and one more thing: Kerry promises he will "build a coalition
of our Allies," and "hunt down and kill the terrorists". Oh really?
Is that why he voted AGAINST the Gulf War offensive, depsite
the VAST Coalition of our Allies at the time? And just *where*
does Mr. Kerry suppose he's going to "find and kill" terrorists?
Afghanistan is an EASY war to support AFTER it's already been won.

Here is one that is so easy to expose as nothing more than
Resentment-baiting by the Kerry ticket: Kerry claims that the
Tax breaks won by the President serve mostly the upper 1% of
America's most wealthy, people making over $200,000 a year.

It's simply a matter of Fairness, with some easy Math thrown in:
If you, the Taxpayer, PAY more taxes (based on your income), you
will RECEIVE more back from a Tax rebate. It's that simple.

Kerry loves to toss out the figure "89 b-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars....!" in
rebates to "the richest Americans," hoping to stir up RESENTMENT
among the Middle Class and especially the Poor.

Far from a BAD thing, this should be a sign of PROSPERITY
in America! Think about it: There are apparently enough wealthy
Americans (if we accept the definition of "wealthy" as the 200k and
above people) in this country that a Tax rollback to them -- a FAIR,
income-based percentage -- adds up to those billions of dollars.

And President BUSH is the only one, of the two, who GETS it when
it comes to spurring economic growth through Small Businesses.
What more can a President do than to take back a portion of the
money a "vote-themselves-a-pay-raise-in-the-middle-of-the-night"
Congress wants to keep and give it BACK to America, while
encouraging would-be Investors and Entrepreneurs to use that
money to jump-start Commerce in this country??

I am so tired of hearing Kerry blast the President on a spate of issues
which NO President has much *direct* control over. Look, there is
one message that you sometimes hear from Fearless Republicans and
which you NEVER hear from the polls-driven Democrats, directed at
the general American public:


Stop blaming Government for every single problem in your lives!
RUN from any candidate who makes sweeping Promises about how
HIS administration is going to come in and "change all that," who
patronizes Voters with vague scenarios of "a stronger America".

How about STRONGER CITIZENS?? How about a new generation
of Americans who take far more responsibility for their lives?
If your kid drops out of school, discipline him/her! If your company
outsources your job, re-train yourself for another career, or find
something else to do in that or another company... If your health care
costs are too high, start taking better care of yourself! If you are an
Illegal Alien, you are breaking the Law and ought to be prosecuted
(ask any Californian about the *strain* on public services there,
caused by a flood of Illegals pouring into that state...).

A strong Republic is a PARTNERSHIP between Citizens and those
they elect, requiring the former to work hard, be smart, and limit
their dependence on Government as much as possible, while the latter
works to create the conditions in which those efforts can be
fruitful and long-lasting...

If YOU have more, that you'd like to see posted here, WRITE to me:

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Subjective Morality

I read on today's CNN web site that the New York Times
has officially endorsed John Kerry for president.

This comes as no surprise at all: The New York Times
is not exactly known for its fair and balanced position
on most issues, remaining in a long-standing contest with
the Boston Globe and the Washington Post for the title
of "most liberal newspaper" in this country...

What really had me shaking my head, though, was the
quote from that publication which characterizes Kerry as
"a man with a strong moral core..."

Moral?? Does that word even *mean* anything in today's
postmodern, pluralistic, anti-traditional-values Society??

It amazes me how anyone -- including liberal publications
like the NYT, Time magazine, and many others-- can, on the
one hand, support so-called "Abortion Rights" and the
homosexual agenda and then turn right around and pronounce
anything or anyone else "moral" or "immoral"...

Gloria Allred -- an avowed, radical, left-wing Feminist --
appealed to "moral duty" a year or so ago, reacting to
Michael Jackson's dangling of his infant son off a
German balcony... Porn purveyor Larry Flynt was quoted
as saying he would not publish the nude photos he owns
of PFC Jessica Lynch because "sometimes you just
have to do the right thing."

Apparently our American mindset has gone so wildly off
the track that we suppose we can legitimately apply the
words and concepts of "Morality" to this or that, here and
there, wherever we choose; we've apparently lost all concept
of the fundamental idea that unless there is an Absolute
STANDARD -- unflinching, unchanging, and applicable to ALL --
then the idea of what is "moral" and what is not "moral"
loses all meaning. Who does the NYT think they're fooling???

For the Christian, however, this is not surprising: The Bible
says that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9). It is not until a person
comes near to our Holy GOD and bows down before Him that any REAL
idea of what is "Moral" and "Immoral" begins to make any sense.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Reaction to Debate 3

I watched nearly all of the third presidential debate
last night (kept flipping over to the Cards game, to
see our team put down the Astros in Game 1 of the
NLCS... Go Cards!!)...

In a word, I believe president Bush *trounced* Kerry.
From the very start, Kerry mumbled, stumbled,
struggled for words, and merely babbled on and on
with the same stale rhetoric that has become the
hallmark of his campaign. He was *clearly* off-center,
not anywhere NEAR as confident and precise as many
had judged him in earlier debates.

The President, by contrast, was comfortable, cheerful,
invigorating, affable and at ease, and his Content was
far, far better than it had been previously.

But HERE is where -- to me -- the contrast between
President Bush and John Kerry becomes starkest:

1. When asked about Faith, Kerry was clearly
uncomfortable, tossing a RIDICULOUS bone to
the New Age movement by dead-panning,
"We're ALL God's children..." ( if he's Catholic,
I doubt his PRIEST appreciated that.... that is,
unless he's part of this new "Catholic" movement
that rejects most of the traditional doctrinal
stances of the Church...)

Bush, by contrast, was clear and unwavering in
his personal statements of faith, making the very
wise connection between Faith, the kind of Person
his Faith makes him, and therefore the kinds of
PRINCIPLES he stands on, which then, inevitably,
influence his Public Policy decisions.
(The subject of Kerry's LACK of personal Principles
is an entire discussion unto itself...)

2. When asked about their Wives, President Bush was
the epitome of class, kindness, and love: He wisely
mentioned -- right off -- the lesson of *listening* to
his dear wife, and then he shared a few tender, gentle,
loving, and sincere comments about how he and his
wife met, and about his profound affection for her...

Kerry, on the other hand, was downright AWKWARD
when mentioning his own wife, leaning heavily on a
self-deprecating joke about *himself* rather than
saying much about any Love he feels for his wife,
or the role she plays in his life, or how they met, or
how he feels about her, or how she might help him
serve as president...

It's clear to me -- now more than ever -- that the
FUEL of the Kerry campaign consists in not much more
than simply TEARING DOWN the Bush administration;
the President's comment about Kerry's "Litany of Complaints"
is classic! That's all Kerry *has*, and what is the Senator's
common refrain, offered as some kind of "answer"??
"I have a Plan...." Uh, right. Gosh, that's SO inspiring...
(As is his liberal voting record in the Senate...)

And notice, Kerry RARELY uses the pronoun "WE".
Poor John Edwards: He's the Ugly Stepsister who is
hardly ever invited to share the spotlight with Captain

The LAST thing this country needs right now is a
self-aggrandizing, liberal Democrat who follows the party
line of, "The Government can solve all your problems,
America". This country NEEDS President Bush, who is
not afraid to say that good governance is a partnership
between hard-working and responsible Citizens and an
administration that works toward a safe and free Society
in which those Citizens can pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Despite all the help from our Leftist media, and regardless
of the disrepectful and whining campaign of the Kerry-Edwards
ticket, I look forward to watching President Bush win on
election day...

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Reaction after 2 debates

I watched both the presidential debates with keen interest,
since Debate is a process I personally enjoy (always have).

Now we all knew, going into both, that Kerry is simply a
better extemporaneous speaker than President Bush.
It's very clear to me, after watching him in two debates,
that Kerry has some well-honed skills in the area of
thinking on his feet, constructing his thoughts, speaking
in careful, measured tones, emphasizing key points,
and leaving his audience with those important little
nuggets to mull over. He's good at this stuff.

By contrast, the President is more colloquial, with more
of an "Everyman" style and approach. Unfortunately,
he seems to feel the need to speak in high-pitched tones
and alarmist rhetoric, and many of us Republicans are
dismayed at the WEALTH of material against Kerry that
President Bush is simply leaving on the table. In short,
I think his debate coach is short-changing him.

But here's what I have to say about the debates, in sum:

So Kerry is a more accomplished public speaker than
President Bush; SO WHAT. So he can turn a phrase
more quickly than the President; WHO CARES.

The bottom line is that Kerry's record on critical issues --
from Taxes to the Military to Abortion to Homosexuality
and others -- not to mention the whole Character question,
still makes the President the more trustworthy and
respectable candidate. THAT kind of thing isn't changed
by these media-driven debates we've been seeing.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

GOD, Bush, and Kerry

So here we are, with the much-anticipated
First Debate set to happen this evening
between President Bush and John Kerry.

I've said in this Blog that I will vote for the
President, and I've said why. I've become
more convinced than ever -- based on what
I've read of him in the past few weeks --
that John Kerry is someone who cannot
make up his mind, and who does not make
consistent decisions based on unshakeable
principles and convictions.

This is not the kind of man America needs
as its leader; the country needs President Bush,
whose courage and compassion stem from
his core set of deeply-held Values.

HOWEVER, that being said, I must hasten to add
that -- as a Christian -- I believe there is a
danger in making TOO MUCH of this election.
In the end, GOD is all that matters, and while
we need to worship God by being good citizens
and making wise election choices (and taking
part in all areas of civic duty), we need to do so
with an awareness that our REAL Joy rests
in the Great Hope we have of one day being
welcomed into God's very Presence.

This world, and all its systems, plans, struggles,
pleasures, and governments will some day pass
away, and God Himself will give us a NEW heaven
and a NEW earth, and we will reign with Him forever.

Temporal things -- including this presidential race --
simply PALE by comparison. Let us proceed through
this process with a sense of Perspective appropriate
to redeemed children of God...

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

The NHL Lockout

This is a sad day for Hockey.

Just when we Hockey fans were enjoying watching
our sport beginning to become popular, this crazy
Collective Bargaining Agreement dispute finally crops up,
ruining the momentum...

If you don't know about this, just visit and
read all the sordid details...

The bottom line, in my opinion, comes down to 2 things:

1. The NHLPA has had FIVE YEARS to figure out
how they're going to respond to the expiration date
of the current CBA. During those 5 years, the League has
exteneded to them millions in additional Salary funds,
to keep the inevitable from happening as long as possible.

Now that the current CBA has expired, the League
is FREE to do as it chooses. They simply cannot continue
operating in the RED, and all they want is to be able to
tie Revenues to Costs, like ANY good business.

And they've been up-front and forthcoming about
the books: They've invited the Union to have their OWN
report done (since the NHLPA choked on the Levitt report),
but the Union never got it done. The League has practically
BEGGED the NHLPA to come to the table regularly, to talk;
all they've gotten is stalling; and the League has offered 6 or 7
distinct proposals which would all still put MILLIONS in
average salaries into the players' pockets; apparently
"millions" isn't good enough for these boys...

2. A Lockout was inevitable, but I don't think Gary Bettman
should stop there. I LOVE HOCKEY, and I could care less about
millionaire, hot-shot players; I think Bettman and the NHL should
encourage ALL the teams in the League to immediatley
put together replacement teams from their "minor" league
organizations, from any NHL player who is NOT a member of
the NHLPA, and from the Junior A and College teams who have
talented young kids just *aching* to get to play on "Big Ice".

As a fan, I would be more than happy to spend time in the
first few weeks getting to know these new players and what they
can do; and all we have to do is look back to the Stanely Cup finals
this past year to see that young, hungry, passionate, comparatively
low-paid hockey players can skate a darn fine hockey game....

So here's a message to all those self-aggrandizing
hot-shots in the NHLPA:

Grow up. Learn a little about how Business works. Produce a
decent report of your own or SHUT your whining mouths and
work with the NHL's report. Having a job -- even that of playing
a sport for a living -- is a PRIVILEGE and not a "right".
Do the right thing, for the sake of the game we all love, and for
all those people whose livelihood depends on 82 games plus
the "second season". DO IT.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Give us YOUR Feedback!


If you'd like to send us your Feedback
to the material you find posted here
at KERNBLOG, feel free to write:

Greg will review your post personally,
and interesting Feedback will be posted
here on the Blog.

Greg K

Monday, August 09, 2004

God and Nature

Just got back from our annual family vacation down at beautiful Table Rock Lake, in southwestern Missouri. Absolutely gorgeous weather, and being on the lake again was fantastic. I'd live down there, if I could figure out how to earn a living from that spot...

There is nothing like being out in the middle of the wonders of Nature to draw your thoughts toward all things MetaPhysical. Whenever I'm enjoying Nature, I'm always struck by the realization that every single one of us is compelled to assimilate a FAITH for ourselves.

It's never a question of "Science" versus "Religion", as post-modernism would have us believe; it's a matter of which FAITH (system of beliefs, World View, etc.) we subscribe to. On the one hand, we are free to believe that the Universe began as some cosmic explosion, the result of a collision of volatile gasses which had "always been there", and that intelligent Life somehow "morphed", over time, from less complex forms to increasingly complex forms... This FAITH says that the Universe -- including intelligent Human life forms -- is a cold, faceless reality of deep Space, and that it's all without any purpose. This FAITH also sees Man as his own "god", and that all our systems of Morals and Laws and Ethics are self-imposed, mostly for our own survival.

On the other hand, Theists and (especially) Christians believe that a superior Intelligence -- which also had no "beginning" and which will have no "end" -- purposefully created the Universe (and I have no problem with something like a "Big Bang", the resulting materials having then been used by God to create Life forms) and then created, enlivened, and placed Humans inside this Universe, incorporating into their consciousness His own sense of Morality and ability to Reason. In this view, the Universe DOES have a purpose, and the glorious Nature we see is a foreshadowing of the kind of Glory He has in store for those who seek Him and find Him.

The point is that BOTH of these World Views require FAITH (especially as that term is taken to mean choosing one view despite the good arguments of the other side, and continuing to hold that view despite changing affections).

I cannot understand how someone who takes a Naturalistitc/Humanistic World View can get any real pleasure or satisfaction out of Nature: It's like enjoying beautiful book covers only to find out that the pages are all blank! The Christian World View gives its faithful the very deep satisfaction that *behind* the wonders of Nature that we enjoy exists a Mind that made them, and that one day we shall not only encounter that Mind but we will also be given the ability to enjoy natural and other profound wonders -- Glories -- in a far more immediate sense.

So really, which of these two World Views takes more FAITH?? Seems to me that the
Christian World View does a far better job of explaining these and other great mysteries than the weak substitutes conjured up by anti-theists; it certainly gives us a whole lot more *substance* than any of these others...

Greg K

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Why I Will Vote for BUSH

In this 2004 presidential election, several things are
on my mind:

1. I am VERY unhappy about the war in Iraq. I never
supported the decision, and now that our "reasons"
for attacking Iraq have been shown to be hollow,
at best, I am dismayed that the loss of life,
the loss of international Goodwill toward the
U.S., and all the bodily injuries suffered by
so many people, all seems now to be for naught.

2. In support of this War, Bush has secured a ballooned
Defense Spending budget that has sent our Federal
Deficit soaring, nullifying all the work of previous
administrations to balance the federal budget.

3. It has been shown that there never was a substantive
relationship between Al-Quaeda and Iraq, and to the
extent that Bush has directed military resources
(including vast sums of money) and attention to the
war in Iraq, he has effectively weakened the focus
of the US (and our Allies') effort against
international Terrorism.

4. This administration has failed MISERABLY to affect
any real momentum in the Middle East peace process,
and that region is now more inclined to all-out WAR
than it has been since 1967...


As much as I WISH, desperately, for another
Ronald Reagan, or for the prosperity of the 90's that
helped Clinton "look good" on the economic front, WISHES
do not a president make.


I am going to reluctantly place my vote for George W. Bush
in this election, for the following reasons:

1. A vote for George W. Bush is a vote for PRO-LIFE; Kerry
is your typical Massachusetts Liberal, deeply rooted in
all the same Anti-Life, fetus-is-merely-tissue philosophy of
the Left-leaning World View.

2. A vote for George W. Bush is a vote for the traditional
position on Marriage: a covenant before God of One Man
and One Woman, bound together to raise a family and
comprise the fabric of a free society. Again, Kerry's
World View dictates otherwise, and his Supreme Court
appointments, powers of Office, and presidential
endorsements would all come down on what I believe
to be the Wrong side of these important social issues.

3. While Bush has made me realize that even a Republican
can blow the federal budget, at least MILITARY spending
creates Demand (for supplies, parts, labor, technology,
etc.) and Demand creates Jobs. A Liberal like Kerry
(think Jesse Jackson) prefers to spend wads of cash
on flaky Social Programs, and billions simply disappear
with NO truly measurable return.

4. Bush makes no bones about the fact that he is a Christian.
Like it or not, EVERYONE has a World View, and EVERYONE
makes decisions -- even presidential decisions -- which
directly stem from that World View. Kerry, from all
I have read of him and from him, pays lip service to
"religion", but my perception is that this is far less
of a driving passion in his life than that of our
President. The last thing this country needs is a
soul-less, passion-less, jack-of-all-Faiths who is
more interested in "not offending" than in taking
a strong, Conservative, decisive stand on specific
aspects of a specific Faith.