THE NONE ISSUE--ISSUE

What if there was a subject that so divided society it would result in various forms of litigation, charities and even violence? What if many people felt so strongly about this subject they would devote their lives to it? What if there were clubs, organizations, religious dogmas or even protests regarding this particular subject? As a Bible believer, wouldn’t it make sense to find such a pivotal, divisive, and important subject covered in God’s word? What if it wasn’t though, yet people still felt strongly about it one way or another? There is just such a subject—abortion.

Here are three things to consider regarding the act of abortion:

1. The Biblical Standpoint

A. You know what they say about assuming…

As everyone knows, most organized western religions forbid abortion as part of their tenets. However, the use of scripture to validate such a doctrine is rather flimsy. The standard texts used to forbid abortion are ones with references to unborn babies.

-Jeremiah 1:4 and 5 “Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

--Notice the word “before.” Jeremiah was born for a specific job and God knew him before he was even conceived not only while he was in the womb.

-Isaiah 44:1 and 2 “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.”

--Again, Jacob was chosen for a specific task in God’s ultimate plan. God knows everyone who will be born because he knows all. He transcends time and space he knows all because he is currently experiencing it.

-Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”

--The poet was praising God for his works of creation. There is nothing mentioned to insinuate that he was denouncing abortion.

-If the fact that God created us is enough reason to not commit abortion, then we need to consider everything from capital punishment to hunting to landscaping. After all, God created people, animals and the earth.

The above passages mention nothing of ending a pregnancy, nor do they even insinuate that it is a negative thing. To claim that these texts forbid abortion is to make a very large assumption. If assumptions are needed to prove a doctrine, is it really a doctrine at all? If it is acceptable to make assumptions in order to prove moral issues…be careful what you wish for:

-Flying crafts should become illegal and any and all air pollution should cease and desist—and that includes farting. Psalm 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

--Airplanes and pollution mar God’s handywork, and while we’re at it, we need to remove all power lines.

-Flashlights are immoral. Genesis 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

--If God wanted man to produce light he would not have created the sun, moon and stars.

-Plucking a gray hair is wrong. Luke 12:7 “But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered…”

--I don’t think God can loose track, but if he knew it was there yesterday…

-Cutting down trees should be banned because God created them for the birds to live in. Matthew 13:32 “Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”

--It’s either that or your house overhang.

-Isaiah 42:5 “Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:”

--Is it wrong to “assume” that this verse makes it sound as if mankind does not have a spirit until he walks on the earth—hence you do not have a spirit until “after birth”? (James 2:26 “For as the body without the spirit is dead…”)

B. The Bible doesn’t seem to put much value on the unborn

Leviticus 27:1-8 “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.”

Why isn’t there any value placed on someone less than one month old? Why isn’t there extra value placed on a woman who is pregnant?

Exodus 21:12-23 “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life…”

If you kill someone--you die; if you hit your parents—you die; if you curse your parents--you die; if you kidnap--you die; if you kill/injure some dude’s wife while fighting--you die; if you kill an unborn baby--you pay a fine.

Numbers 5:12 to 31 refers to a jealous husband and how he can be assured whether his wife has cheated or not. It seems as if the process would have caused the miscarriage of an illegitimate baby.

Genesis 38:24 “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.”

Until Judah realized the kid was his, he planned to kill both of them. The writer of the passage does not condemn him for his actions either.

C. The Bible is absolutely silent on the issue

Abortion has been around for quite some time. It was around when God inspired the scripture. If he is so dogmatic against abortion, why does it not have a more prominent place in the Bible? The earliest recorded abortion is found in the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus dating to 1550 B.C. During Israel’s captivity in Egypt they were exposed to Egypt’s ways. Ancient Egyptian texts dating from around 1784 BC to 1300 BC contain numerous recipes for contraceptives and abortifacients. To assume when God said “thou shalt not kill” automatically meant to not kill the unborn is a large assumption. Even Egypt had laws forbidding killing, but abortion was a common practice. The Israelites had spent all of their lives at this point, with the Egyptians and followed their laws. Is it not logical to think that God would have been a little more specific about the issue if he was so concerned about the unborn? The commandment not to kill would have been a no-brainer for them. They were already living with the idea that killing was wrong, but they were also living with the fact that abortion was a common occurrence.

If God wanted it to be wrong, he would have said so. The Bible clearly states several things mankind is required to do or avoid:

“Thou shalt not kill…” Exodus 20:13
“Love thy neighbor as thyself…” Matthew 22:39
“Honor thy father and mother…” Ephesians 6:2

Why leave abortion so ambiguous?

D. One final Biblical thought

Is it a good idea to go ahead and make it wrong since the scripture says nothing about it? Only if you want to add to God’s word; and you know what he said about that:

Revelation 22: 18 and 19 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

2. Someone’s opinions or personal preferences should never be forced upon another person.

In the opinion of this writer, abortion is a sad thing that should not happen very often, but it is nothing more than a personal preference of some people.

If someone does not like the color green, should all green painted houses be demolished? What about green cars? Should they be sent to the junk heap? No. If someone doesn’t like green, they don’t need to support the color green in their lives. They could paint their grass orange if they wanted to. But they have no right, business or reason to force such a notion upon anyone else. The same goes for any other issue that falls under personal preference—including abortion.

3. Consider the life the child would have.

Are there really as many willing couples ready to adopt as there are abortions? Reportedly there are between 1 and 1.5 million abortions performed every year. Would every unwanted child be placed into a caring and loving home? It’s doubtful at best. Where would all the children go? The day of the orphanage is over—fortunately. Many would be stuck with the person who birthed them but didn’t want them and would likely be treated as such. Would you mind seeing abortion banned if it meant seeing more children living on the street? What about children born with severe defects? What kind of life would a child without a brain have? Not long of one to be certain. What about any number of other life altering problems? Should a family be forced into financial ruin, bankruptcy or poverty because they had no choice but to give birth to a baby whose body is ravaged by defects? Is that fair to the baby to live that kind of life? Would it be fair to the family who would love the baby and mourn its loss at an untimely, yet merciful, death? It is an admirable thing for a family to give birth to a baby with relatively minor mental and/or physical dysfunctions and care for the child all his or her life; but what about those families who chose not to? Shouldn’t that be admirable as well? We would have mercy on a puppy born with defects by euthanizing it; why should we force a baby to be born with and live through a condition we wouldn’t let a dog?

As for the matter of abortion, there is no need to debate it unless someone can prove beyond any doubt that scripture forbids it. Until that day, it should be considered a non-issue at best and not worth basing critical decisions on.

Message to all Homeschooling Families

To all Homeschoolers and Friends/Family of Homeschoolers I offer the following for your edification and information only.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Just a little info about me, my wife and I are long time members of the Libertarian Party (since 1996). This election cycle we supported Congressman Ron Paul. Since he is no longer in the running for President of the United States, we will have our own Party to support.

As for the presidential ticket the Libertarian Party selected this year and I must say: There has never been a more pro-Homeschool ticket out there--EVER!

Former republican Congressman Bob Barr was selected as our Presidential Candidate and self-made millionaire Wayne Allen Root as our VP Candidate. Bob Barr left the republican party and joined the Libertarian Party some time ago. Though he was not my first choice for the ticket, he was better than some of the other choices and still better than the choices the two big parties have.

I have attached an article by Mr. Barr regarding Homeschooling and also the link to his website. Wayne Allen Root has been a long time Libertarian and I have attached a portion of the "I Stand For..." section of his website (and the link) regarding education. Even though they have the money to send their children to any school they'd choose to, Mr. Root and his wife homeschool their 4 children!

As Homeschoolers we pride ourselves on our "self-education" and it especially shouldn't be any different when it comes to deciding who to vote for. That is one of the many reasons why we, the Evans', do not rely on the general media (TV and radio) for our information, but seek it out ourselves.

This information is only given for edification, not party bashing or to be in any way offensive--sorry if you find it that way. We just like to think for ourselves and have found that most homeschoolers do as well. So without further ado:

BOB BARR

Home school ruling should strike fear
by Bob Barr April 2, 2008

Home schooling is an important component of Georgia's educational framework. Many thousands of families across the state school some 40,000 children in their homes. It is a system that continues to work well for Georgia parents so inclined.

From my own experience as a member of Congress who personally reviewed hundreds of applications for admission to our country's military academies, I can attest to the fact that high school seniors who had been home schooled for all or part of their academic careers competed favorably in all aspects of academics with students who attended public or private schools. Georgia is not alone in recognizing the value of home schooling; virtually all other states do as well.

However, that vital system of home schooling is now threatened. Georgia parents, legislators and others who care about fairness and choice in education, and who value parental rights and individual freedom, should take note and take steps to ensure that a recent court decision in California does not take hold in our state.

While those of us east of the Mississippi, particularly here in the South, are aware that California courts generally render decisions favoring maximized government control and minimized individual liberty, a recent appeals court in that state is breathtaking in its disdain for historic notions of individual and family freedom.

The California Court of Appeals has effectively outlawed home schooling, and the ripple effects of this judicial tsunami may be felt even here in the Peach State.

The facts underlying the California case did not even relate directly to the institution of home schooling, but rather involved alleged abuse and neglect. Notwithstanding this, the decision took an unexpected turn when the majority ruled that every child in the state must be enrolled in and attend full time either a public or accredited private school, where they are to be taught only by state-certified teachers. Only parents who are state certified could home school their children.
The intent of the California jurists to completely abolish home schooling could not have been clearer: "Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." To ensure the message was not misunderstood, the court held that violators could be prosecuted and jailed. With the stroke of a judicial pen, home schooling parents in California became common criminals.
In Orwellian language, this decision sends a clear message that children are to be considered obedient wards of the state. Parents who might disagree with the state-developed and state-sponsored curriculum or teaching methods are slap out of luck. Home schooling is simply not an option.

The California court decision not only bows to longstanding cries from teachers unions that home schooling undermines their role, but also wholly disregards the unique needs and wants of both parents and students who choose to home school. For many children, home schooling is the only viable alternative to a system that is not effective in light of their specific needs and desires. Home schooling also offers a constructive way of keeping children from becoming dropouts, by promoting tailored curricula to help students excel and want to learn - traits glaringly lacking in much of the public school population.

Even more troubling is the risk this decision poses to home schooling nationwide. California, as the nation's most populous state, unfortunately serves in many respects as a model to other parts of the nation. The huge number of textbooks used by California's public schools, for example, often prompts publishers to tailor the content of their publications to that state's desires.
Clearly also, the California court decision raises the truly dangerous possibility that shortsighted courts in other parts of the country will rush to act in a similar fashion. There is the harrowing specter of dissolving entirely a family's right to control education.

Rather than calmly waiting for the effects of the California court's opinion to be felt here, Georgia legislators and other state leaders should be speaking loudly and clearly against this destructive decision. They should already be reviewing our laws as they relate to home schooling - to strengthen them against the onslaught that has now been empowered by the California Court of Appeals.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

WAYNE ALLEN ROOT

*I support Freedom and Parental Choice in the Educational System- The constitution does not allow for federal government interference in the education of our children. As a matter of fact, the word "education" never appears once in the Constitution. We need to get federal government out of the education business. We need to give parents and students the freedom to pursue the education of their choice- just as my wife and I do by choosing to home-school our 4 children. I support giving parents control of the education of their own children, instead of government bureaucrats. I support utilization of school choice, vouchers or tax credits on the state and local level to increase education competition; encourage private, parochial and home-schooling; reward superior performance for educators; create magnet schools which give principals autonomy over budgets, hiring and firing; and streamline bureaucracy- giving our education dollars to teachers and kids, NOT bureaucrats and administrators.*I support the total elimination of the Department of Education on the federal level. The more we spend on education, the WORSE the results, the more damage we do to our children. In 2000, the Dept. of Education budget was $33 billion. Today it is $64 billion. Has education improved? Have drop-out rates improved? Have reading or math scores improved? We've doubled the budget- yet the results are worse than ever. What a great example of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and waste. Hey a billion here and a billion there- pretty soon we have some real money at stake!

http://www.rootforamerica.com/

Other Political Parties include, but are not limited to:

The Constitution Party
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Presidential Candidate.

Dr. Baldwin says

"I wholeheartedly support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including homeschooling or private or religious instruction. My Administration will oppose any and all federal legislation that would interfere with or restrict that liberty. "

http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGR3aW4yMDA4LmNvbS8=
http://www.constitution-party.net/

The American Patriot Party

We are for school choice. States and local communities and individuals choice of home schooling and private schools are encouraged. We are for removal of the federal department of education, the tax burden it creates and removal of its national control of private, state and local community schools as well as from home schools.

See APP on Education.

The American Heritage Party

Education: Our Creator has assigned to parents the authority and duty of educating children. All teaching is related to fundamental assumptions about God and man, and cannot be separated from religion. Therefore we support the separation of school and state, "freedom of conscience in education" legislation, and the operation of home schools and private schools unencumbered by government.And there are many others.

Even the Green Party supports a parent's right to homeschool their children.

http://www.gp.org/


Check out http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ for information on more choices this election.

Happy learning and keep up the good work!

The 10 Commandments?

A funny thing happened to me on the way to work this morning…Well, it didn't exactly happen to me and it wasn't really funny.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here folks are making popular a yard sign that reads "We Stand For" followed by an artist's rendition of the stone tablets containing God's Law to the Children of Israel (commonly called the "10 Commandments"). Have you ever taken the time to count the "10 commandments?" Personally, I count 10 "Thou shalt nots," one "remember" and one "honour." That makes 12.

I always find it amusing when, on the seventh day of the week, I pass by a house that is proudly displaying their stand for the "10 Commandments," and the family is out mowing the lawn, trimming the hedges or painting the garage. So much for remembering the Sabbath day… Of course, they probably believe that Sunday is the "new and improved" Sabbath...just because there are a couple references to the disciples meeting together for a meal on the first day of the week. They also met in synagogues, should we do the same simply because they did? Or are we allowed to pick and choose what truths we twist into modern dogma?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" Second Timothy 4:3 and 4.

I passed by a house displaying that same yard sign during the Christmas season and they also had a "manger scene" in their front yard about 10 feet from it. If I am not mistaken, the second commandment reads "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above..." (Exodus 20:4). (The third one prohibits worshipping graven images, but the second one says they should not be made.) What hypocrisy! How can a person stand for something in which they do not believe? Why boast that you stand for something when in action you prove you do not? "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" First Corinthians 10:12. "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits...Be not wise in your own conceits." Romans 11:25a and 12:16b.

The crux of the problem stems from the fact that people today do not stand on Scripture for their beliefs, as Martin Luther called it, sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). It seems here in the United States people have begun to search for God, and unfortunately, they are using their own means and ideas to find him. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof..." Second Timothy 3:5. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" Titus 1:16.

At sporting and special events, "God Bless America" is sung immediately following the National Anthem. Moments of silence (AKA prayers) are offered on a regular basis at work, school and other functions. Church attendance is up, and that is considered to be a sign of "revival" in this country. Requests for and offering of prayer comes from nearly all government officials. People seem to be holding a higher regard for "religious things." Instead of singing a song that mentions God, how about reading the very book he wrote? It seems that many people are hoping that religiousness and churchliness will be their shield and protector...their saviour. Recently we passed a "church sign" that read "Looking for a Savior?" Of course people are looking for a saviour, but we need to be looking "into the perfect law of liberty, and continuing therein..." (James 1:25) to find the Saviour, not a savior. Unfortunately, modern people are looking in all the wrong places for their saviours, and worst of all--finding them. Things such as prayers/incantations, charities, churches, mentors, organizations, religions, pastors, programs, et al, have replaced Scripture as the only means to God. "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" Second Corinthians 11:13 through 15. "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" James 1:26 and 27.

But how can we expect the world to search "the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15) when those claiming to be followers of God do not know what his book says or how to "rightly divide" it (II Tim. 2:15)? Instead of listening to organizations, politicians, news anchors, pastors, religious leaders, authors, mentors, etc., perhaps people should start going to God's Word for all doctrine. Stop going to church and start going to God's Word. Stop depending on a person to read God's Word for you and start reading it yourself. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being in the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." Hebrews 1:1 through 3. Stop calling for "revival" in a country that completely ignores God's Word and begin pleading for evangelism. The act of reviving something is to put life back into it. Dr. Frankenstein found out what happens when you give life to something that was dead--he created a monster, and so will we, if we are not careful.

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" First Peter 1:22 through 25.

Do It For Mom!

I was standing at the urinal in a restroom of the State Department of Health when the man sitting in a stall exited, put on his suit jacket, straightened his tie and walked right out of the room—right past the sink—in the Department of Health for crying out loud! Granted, just because he was sitting in a stall of a public restroom does not mean he was making-a-deposit, after all, he could have been a Republican Senator waiting for a date, but it still didn’t look good.


CNN recently reported that scientists found one-third of the men who used a public restroom where they did their study, did not wash their hands. I think they must have caught the restroom on a good day. My son and I, on numerous occasions, have been the only people in a men’s room to even approach the sink. I have seen guys sprinkle their hands with a little water and walk out. It’s not holy water pouring out of the tap guys, it doesn’t magically wipe away all the germs and debris stuck to your hands.


I can’t vouch for a women’s restroom, as I never go in them, so I asked my wife about it. I was amazed when she told me many women do the same thing. That was very surprising to me because no matter what type of transaction it is, a woman’s experience is a rather close and personal one with a public toilet.


Wash your hands people, that’s disgusting!


I don’t know about the “none washers” but I quit touching my poo when I quit doing it in my pants. I’d rather not touch someone else’s whether directly or indirectly. I also don’t care what your sexual orientation is that’s your business, but mine is straight and I have no desire to touch another man’s pecker even if it is vicariously through a doorknob.


Here are two reasons why you should wash your hands after using the restroom:


1. To prevent the spreading of bad germs and the displacement of good ones; and
2. It makes your mom look very bad when you don’t.


Our body has a symbiotic relationship with a host of bacteria and yeasts known as our “normal flora.” A healthy human body has all the bacteria where it needs to be and just the right amounts. When the bacteria and yeasts are out-of-balance, or new ones introduced, illness occurs. E. Coli is used by the body to break down the food we eat. The problem with E. Coli occurs when it is any where other than the lower intestines. The bacteria salmonella occurs naturally in turtles and other reptiles and is usually harmless to them, but inside a person it can cause a serious illness. Bacteria and yeasts have a proper place and proper function. When they are out-of-place they can’t do their job properly and cause a whole host of problems for the whole host.


When a person does not wash his or her hands after using the facilities they leave the various bacteria and yeasts every where they touch: doorknobs, hand rails, money, keyboards, sticks of gum, mints, the hand they shook afterwards, et al. Sharing germs with the general public is what causes outbreaks of viral infections such as flues and colds. When an employee of a business with a high volume of customers, such as a restaurant, has a case of bacterial meningitis, it is a serious public health threat. You can even make yourself sick by giving yourself your own germs. The yeasts commonly found in the pubic area have no business being in the eyes or nose, even if they are your own germs.


If the concerns over one’s own health or that of the general public’s does not prompt people to wash their hands regularly, perhaps thinking about mom will. Didn’t your mom raise you better than that? Didn’t your mom teach you to wash your hands after using the toilet? Next time you walk out of the restroom without properly washing your hands, think about your mom and how bad you just made her look. People are going to assume your mom didn’t raise you right or that you were an orphan raised by a pack of uncouth wolves. Don’t do that to her, she deserves better than that. After all, she went through hours and hours of labor and knocked on Death’s door to bring you into this world, and if you make her look bad she can take you out of it. So wash your hands for mom’s sake if not for the rest of us.

Open Letter to Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party

Dear Sirs,

Regarding Bob Barr's decision to not attend Ron Paul's press conference; I am afraid the damage is done, and the alienation may be irreversible. I fear this, at worst; bruise-to-a-reputation will appear in the eyes of many as a festering, oozing, wound to an already fragile Barr reputation. Though to some degree I understand and sympathize with the reasoning; I feel it will ultimately serve as a death knell to the LP's chances this election cycle.

The LP already functions in a reputation and credibility deficit; and this election, the schisms in our party are far more volatile than in the past. To estrange the party from a libertarian icon was a dangerous (possibly foolish) thing, even if unintentional. Yes, we as a party want Libertarian candidates and Bob Barr to have as many votes as possible in the general election. But freedom-of-choice is one of the LP's main principles. Not appearing with the other "third parties" and basically stating 'Bob Barr wants all the votes' ostracizes our party from Paul supporters and the other third party supporters (and undecided). Is it the LP's goal to merely create a three party system, as opposed to the two-party dictatorship we already have? I would hope not! The more competition we have, the more our party will be challenged to continually improve and lead the way for liberty; not grow stagnant of freedom and gluttonous for power as the two big parties have.

Something needs to be done to repair this damage and done quickly before it ruins our chances forever—the cause of liberty will not survive if its proponents are divided. Whining about being mistreated isn't the way to do it either. Sucking it up and "rubbing elbows" with the right people is not compromising, it is smart politics. Even if Ron Paul’s underlying reason for the conference was egotistical and self-serving (which I do not believe it was), it still promoted liberty and choice—and that is what the Libertarian Party is all about.

Those are my thoughts. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Matthew Evans

A Funny Thing Happened On My Way Home

I clocked in two minutes late today and received an incident on my attendance record. I attempted to explain the situation to my supervisor, but he would have no part of it. Instead of being penalized for being late, I should actually be venerated. It all started yesterday on my way home from work.

To make a short story long…I was on my way home from work last night, looking around minding my own business, when I witnessed an auto accident about 23 cars ahead of me around a corner involving a green Toyota. As I approached the scene of the accident I could clearly see the victim looking in her rearview mirror and apparently crying and I realized it wasn't a green Toyota, it was a gray Lincoln—but no matter. Being the chivalrous man that I am, I leapt to her rescue and rushed to her car. I attempted to rip the driver's side door from its hinges, but could not, I figured it had something to do with the accident; so I pulled the door-latch and opened it that way. As I opened her door, she looked at my direction; I could see from how huge her eyes became and how the color flushed from her face that she must have been in shock. I looked her right in the eyes and yelled quietly "DON'T WORRY, YOU'RE IN DANGER, I AM HERE TO HELP!" I knew she was in shock when she said "Help for what? Get away from me you freak!" I am just glad I was there for her.

I attempted to yank her from the vehicle for fear that it could explode any second, but her hands had become frozen from fright and would not let go of the steering wheel. The poor thing must have been in severe pain from the accident because as I attempted to rescue her from the wreckage she continually screamed and yelled. I must have inadvertently hurt her, because after my eighth or ninth yank she hit me in the head with her purse. I attempted to reassure her that I was only helping and informed her that I had been trained in CPR when I was in the Boy Scouts. The poor thing was in such shock that once I removed her from the wreckage she attempted to run away several times. I had to tackle her twice. Good thing I remembered a few of my old football moves from high school. Out of fear she could exacerbate any internal injuries, I sat on top of her until help could arrive.

I was rather surprised when instead of EMS, a vehicle which looked to be an unmarked police car pulled up. A man wearing what appeared to be an authentic police uniform stepped out of the vehicle and began running toward us. It was right then that I remembered an episode of 'The Alien Files' I had watched the other day. The show is off the air now, but is in syndication on the Artificial Intelligence Channel. But I happened to have checked it out at the local library, which is really convenient since my Beta VCR is busted and I couldn't record it. The episode was titled "Cop Alien Abductions," from season 5, episode 27. In the episode there was this rogue alien from the planet Venus (not the Solar System Venus, but another Venus from another galaxy) who dressed up as a local law enforcement officer and responded to vehicle accidents. He would respond and abduct helpless victims without anyone ever figuring it out. His victims would be used as slave labor in sneaker making factories. I sensed something wasn't totally right about the cop by the way he looked right at me and was hurrying our way. He didn't at all seem interested in the crash victim, than a strange fear came over me. Now I am not one who normally over reacts to things, but my gut told me this guy was not going to be nice. It was right then I realized I needed to do something to protect the lady. Don't misunderstand; I didn't think the fake cop was an alien from another Venus. I figured he was probably an illegal alien from another country trying to abduct people to sell into his country's slave market. It only took a fraction of a second, but I imagined in my mind this poor helpless woman being forced to work in a factory, probably making golf balls or something.

What I did next any real American hero would have done--I kicked the fake, illegal alien cop right in the nuts. As he crumpled over in pain I took the lady's purse from her and began beating him in the head with it. There was only one problem with my last-minute-plan--I didn't see he wasn't alone until the last split second. Out of the corner-of-my-eye I caught the glimpse of three to four other fake, illegal alien cops running at me, right about then everything went dark.

I woke up a few hours later in a jail cell. I was confused at first but then I realized that I was most likely there for my own protection, I still can't figure out why I was handcuffed. I figured the real police probably showed up just about the time the fake, illegal alien cops were about to abduct me and the lady and they rescued us somehow. Wow, do I owe them; I don't know the first thing about making golf balls. When the jailor saw I was awake he opened the door and led me into a poorly lit room. I was questioned for several more hours about the incident and I told them everything I just told you. I even met with a psychiatrist while I was there. He kept shaking his head while I told him my story. I think he was one of those bleeding-heart liberals who always side with the fake, illegal alien cops. Eventually they gave me a piece of paper and told me I needed to report to court in a couple days. I assume they captured those fake, illegal alien cops and I need to go to court to testify—I'm looking forward to putting them away. The streets will be safer once we rid them of those fake, illegal alien cops.

As I left the jailhouse I realized I had been there all night and only had 10 minutes to get to work. So I drove straight there and clocked in two minutes late; thus receiving my incident. Oh well, to paraphrase an old Yogi Bear saying "That's the way the cookie crumbles once you step on it."

One very good piece of news I can report is, while on my way out of the jailhouse I saw the lady from the accident drive past and she looked very good. So did her car, her mechanic must have evening hours…

Letter to the Editor

Voting one's conscience is not a wasted ballot

I am sick and tired of being told that I waste my vote because I refuse to vote for either of the two big parties. I have voted Libertarian (or for other third-party candidates) for more than 12 years and have been proud to do so. I have had many people tell me that I waste my vote by doing so, and I cannot believe the audacity of some people. I vote my principles and conscience, and they vote for the "lesser of two evils," and I "waste my vote"? How do they figure? Those who feel they must vote for the "lesser of two evils" are the folks who waste their votes.

Voting one's conscience, principles or attitude is far from wasting a vote. If your conscience tells you to vote for either of the two big parties, for the Libertarians, the Green Party, Constitution Party or an Independent – do it. Voting for evil, lesser or not, is wasting a vote. There are far more choices out there – don't vote for evil of any kind.

As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

MATTHEW EVANS Fort Wayne

THE CHRISTIAN NATION NOTION

Is the USA a Christian nation? Does the USA have a Christian heritage? No and No. The USA is no more a Christian nation than Canada, Mexico, Cuba or Swaziland.

Here are just a few points to ponder concerning this idea that the USA is or ever was a Christian nation or was founded on Christian principles:

What about the people who came to this land looking for religious freedom? What about them? The Pilgrims (Puritans) who landed on Plymouth Rock were but a part of the vast number of peoples who came to this land. The Germans, Spaniards, French and English all had settlements and colonies here, as well as the cavaliers, renegades and pirates. England made it a practice of sending their criminals here. A practice that so angered Benjamin Franklin, that he wanted to catch all the venomous snakes coming out of hibernation and in turn send them to England.
The early Puritans, who supposedly came here fleeing religious persecution, were the perpetrators of the same in the communities they established. If you weren't a believer in the local community's particular religion you could have been flogged or even place in stocks. The Puritans did attempt to convert the aboriginal people here, but when their efforts failed, they believed it was their obligation to slaughter them all. In the middle of the night on May 26, 1637 and once again on July 14, 1637 they killed the unsuspecting Pequot Indian tribe, men, women and children. (They claimed to be under the same providential authority to commit such acts as the Israelites were in the Old Testament.) How Christian is that?
What about slavery? Don't fool yourself slavery was around long before the Civil War and that particular war was not fought to free slaves, it was fought for state's rights. Why would a supposed Christian nation even allow such a practice?

What about the 40 acres and a mule the former slaves were promised after the Civil War? If the U.S. government would have kept that promise, how would today's minority/poverty ratio look?

What about those who believe we should blindly follow the leaders in government because Romans 13 tells us to? If this were true the USA should not exist because no one should have rebelled against the king of England. That's just silly. The only reason such a verse is used is when a particular political party is in office and today's religious leaders don't want them questioned.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other phrases, such as "Mind Your Business."

Weren't our laws based upon the "10 Commandments"? Nope. The only things our laws have in common with the "10 Commandments" are: don't murder, don't steal and don't lie under oath. What about the others?

How about the treaty with the Islamic country of Tripoli in 1797? This treaty was negotiated under Washington, ratified by the Senate, and signed by President John Adams. The telling part is a description of religion in America:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [i.e., Muslims] ..., it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" (The Search for Christian America, p. 131).

About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

Do most people even know that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist, and opposed orthodox Christianity and anything supernatural?
Should I mention what was done to the Indians? You know, how they were slaughtered, had their land stolen and every time the U.S. government promised them something…they reneged.
The Salem witch trials were a pretty pompous and pious time in our history.
God placed man in charge of the earth to take care of it, so what do the people of the 18th and 19th centuries do? They nearly drive the American Bison to extinction.

ONE MORE THING:

What about how God has blessed the United States because it supports Israel? Whatever!
The United States was founded on July 4, 1776. At the time there was no Israel, and hadn't been for centuries prior, Israel wasn't a nation again until 172 years later on May 14, 1948. How could the United States have been blessed for supporting a nation that didn't exist until around 60 years ago?

When Britain's mandate over Palestine ended the United States was the first nation to recognize Israelis independence, but the United Nations wasn't far behind. The very day Israel declared its independence it was invaded by an alliance of Arab countries and defeated them without the aid of the U.S. Though Israel was considered to be the victors in the invasion, the Arab countries did capture large sections of the country, including such strategic sections as the Gaza Strip. This land was retaken by Israel on October 29, 1956 with the help of France and Britain, and not the U.S.

Since 1948 has the United States of America been any better because of its support of Israel? I don't think so. We have been involved in various illegal wars and unconstitutional conflicts and seen the senseless deaths of many brave soldiers and deaths of millions of innocent people. Among other things we have witnessed the creation of the Federal Reserve, countless useless bureaucracies, insane inflation and unemployment, corrupt politicians, and many other things. (I do not call it the "holy land" either, for it is not holy at all, unless you mean the [bullet] holey land.)

The U.S. is far from a Christian nation and does it have a Christian heritage. To say so is ignorant of the facts and the definition of the word "Christian."

My Wife

"Isn't she beautiful?" That's what my mom said to me about the girl in the pew behind her. I was an independent 18 year old hot shot; I didn't need or want my mom to point out good-looking girls. I was dating a different girl every weekend, and flirting with the rest. But, I had to admit she was beautiful. Long brown hair, even longer legs, brown-eyes to beat all brown-eyes, perfect lips, a button nose, and a voice meant for experiencing…she had it all.

I eventually learned her name was Stacy, before that I referred to her as "that tall girl." She moved into my hometown from northeast Ohio due to her dad being transferred by his employer. Eventually we became friends and hung out a church functions. My mom went "gah-gah" over her almost immediately, and unfortunately, I was a cocky kid who didn't really like the idea of my mom picking my dating prospects. Fortunately I did get to know her and realized she was just as beautiful on the inside as she was on the outside. She was intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, and fun to be around.

Our first date was on Stacy's 17th birthday. I felt bad that I did not know it; I wished I had at least picked something up for her. I took her to see "Blind Date" starring Bruce Willis. We didn't care for the movie much, but whenever it comes on TV, we watch it. Afterwards I asked her where she wanted to eat and that's when she told me some friends had taken her for pizza before I picked her up. She said she wasn't hungry. I was, but I didn't tell her that and took her to Dairy Queen. I thought for the sake of my coolness I would order a Blizzard, but the employee was generous with my ice cream and it quickly melted all over the outside of my cup. But Stacy made me feel at ease about it, and we just laughed. We still laugh about it.

After two dates with this girl I realized being with her was not just fun, it was actually fulfilling. I was completely comfortable around her. At the end of date two I asked if we could be exclusive and she agreed. There was something about Stacy that excited me and scared me at the same time. I could see me spending the rest of my life with her and that intimidated me, what if she didn't really feel the same way? What if I somehow screw it up and it doesn't last? What if…? During our two years of dating I called her twice with the intentions of breaking up just because I was scared she would do it first. But after the first few minutes of our conversations those fears would melt away. Eventually I decided to screw the "What if's" and planned to fight to keep Stacy as mine forever.

I had just turned 19; Stacy was 17 when she stopped by the construction site where I was roofing. She worked just a few blocks past where I was and would stop by to say "hi." While we were talking she mentioned something about "when we're married." I don't even remember what it was, but my response was "I haven't even asked you to marry me yet." So I did. Stacy has a smile that shows on her entire face; when her lips smile, so do her eyes, her cheeks and even her nose. When she is excited about something she also has a hug which would rival a bear's. Her face lit up and an excited, thrilled and satisfying "YES!" came out of her mouth, then she threw her arms around my neck and began suffocating me.

I must say, the hardest part of becoming married isn't the work it takes to stay together forever; it's the planning for the damn wedding. She took me along to see the cake, the flowers, etc. It's not that I didn't care about the wedding; it's just that I would have been fine with flying to Vegas and having Elvis marry us. But Stacy was just like any other bride-to-be and gave every possible moment to planning her wedding. Was she ever breath-taking that day. We held the ceremony at the bottom of a hill which she and her father walked down. When she floated down those steps towards me, time slowed, all I could hear was my heart pounding in my ears, my eyes watered because I refused to blink and miss even a twinkling of her visage. She wasn't just beautiful; she was the very definition of beauty. I remember her giggling at my boutonniere as it bounced with the pounding of my heart. The newly wed stage is great. Feeling like a newly wed when I am with her even after 19 years is even better though. I still want to be with her every possible moment. Sometimes I feel as if I follow her around room-to-room like a puppy dog.

About three months into our marriage Stacy was working a part-time job at a small pizza shop. I stopped by to see her one evening so we could have supper together during her break. She told me she had a kink in her neck all day and asked if I could rub it for her. That's when I found it. It was about the size of half a walnut sticking up near her collar bone. The biopsy showed it to be malignant—Hodgkin's disease. Just after the surgery to remove the lump for biopsy I looked down at her asleep in the hospital bed. She was still so beautiful, even after just having surgery. I couldn't keep up the "Mr. Cool" façade any longer. I couldn't stop the tears. Stacy's parents were there at the time and her mom put her arms around me and let me cry on her shoulder, which meant a lot to me and still does. Cancer is tough on a 10 year old marriage; I think folks were fearful it would end a 3 month old one. Fortunately, Stacy is a patient, understanding and loving woman and I am a dedicated, stubborn and 'that's what you think' kind of guy.

The next step was to see how far along the disease was; back then that was done by exploratory surgery. The doctor cut Stacy open from just below her rib cage to just past her cute bellybutton. They removed her spleen, biopsied her liver, removed numerous lymph nodes and did other things I cannot remember. The Hodgkin's disease was fairly advanced. She had a couple very large tumors in her chest near her heart. The doctor said they were too big for radiation due to the collateral damage it causes, so he sent her through six months of chemotherapy. Chemo patients vomit a lot and are way too wiped out to clean up after themselves. I couldn't believe how easy it was to clean up after her, I didn't mind at all. Stacy spent a lot of time in bed, particularly after a treatment. I learned to cook, clean, do laundry and I also learned that you never put Dawn dish soap in a dish washing machine.

While Stacy was on chemotherapy I switched jobs to one in Indianapolis, about 45 minutes away. With the job change also came a health insurance change and we were headed off to Indianapolis every day for her radiation treatments. Stacy and I would leave early in the morning for her treatments at St. Francis Hospital (about 45 minutes away). We'd return home with enough time for me to put her to bed, straighten things up and make sure she had all that she needed, then go back to Indy for my job at 2 pm. Even at less than $1.00 a gallon, the gas was killing us.

Stacy had a doctor named Sayok who would talk to us about our marriage and showed true concern over us emotionally, not just Stacy's physical well-being. He also warned us that the radiation she was going through would kill her ovaries. He knew we hadn't been married long and was worried about what that news would do to us. I appreciated his thoughtfulness, but wanted to take it one step at a time and cross the children bridge when we came to it. I definitely wanted to have children with her. I knew if our children just had half of her beauty, this world would be a much lovelier place. (I was correct by the way.)

Radiation therapy isn't any better or worse than chemotherapy, it's just different. Stacy's skin at the radiation sites burned severely. I would rub cream on her neck in an attempt to relieve some of the pain and keep her skin from scarring to badly. Her cute belly button was in a treatment site and became infected. The doctor gave us a cleaning solution and antibiotic foam for it. Every evening I would clean it out for her and fill her belly button with the foam. It was rather cute seeing the ball of foam rising out of her belly button. An inedible whip cream on top of my favorite dessert…

When the chemotherapy and radiation treatments the doctor had prescribed were completed Stacy was given a Gallium Scan. The technician injected a substance into Stacy that was kept in a lead box and something she didn't touch bare handed. The scan showed signs that the treatments missed something in her chest tumors and they needed to go in and remove them for biopsy. That was devastating. The time between the test results and the surgery results were extremely difficult. To this day I refuse to watch movies or listen to songs which have cancer as a theme. Stacy's side was cut open and her ribs spread apart to allow access to her chest cavity. They had to remove her arm from the shoulder socket and place it over her head. She spent the first few days in intensive care. The good news was the tumors came back benign.
The cancer was behind us, remission was before us. Stacy has since been declared cured of her Hodgkin's disease. She doesn't know it, but the day she told me the doctor declared her cured, I cried, but they were happy tears that time.

Occasionally Stacy will say something about her scars and for a moment I won't know what she means. When I see her, I just see beauty and nothing else. I see a woman who is even more attractive to me today than she was when I first laid eyes on her. More attractive because of how blessed and lucky I am to still have her in my life.

Stacy has had several other health issues, some caused by the radiation treatments she had and others natural. She only has one artery feeding blood to her heart, whereas most people have three. Her heart itself has suffered some damages due to the radiation. She also lost some lung capacity due to it. Her thyroid was nearly wiped out as well. I still don't mind taking care of her; I rather enjoy it because I love her. But with every new "problem" that comes along I fret and cry.

About one year after Stacy was declared in remission she came home to tell me that she had seen the doctor and he was referring her to a specialist. My heart sank, "not again" I thought. She then proceeded to tell me that the specialist was an obstetrician. She literally had to catch me as my knees gave out and I'm not so sure I have forgiven her for doing that to me. Three more times after that she was referred to an OB specialist. Dr. Sayok held our first child and told us he was never happier to have been wrong.

I love my wife Stacy Lynn Evans. She brings beauty to this decrepit world. Her presence improves a summer sunset. Holding her hand on an autumn walk makes the colors more vibrant. Her smile is a gift from God himself. I am honored she chose to be with me. I am thankful and bewildered she chooses to stay with me. She is surely God's magnum opus. To me, she is my world, my life, my love and my reason for existing. "Isn't she beautiful?" Yes mom, she truly is.

BARBEQUING SOME SACRED COWS

BARBEQUING SOME SACRED COWS

The term "sacred cow" is a metaphorical phrase, and, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1994, it means, "any person or thing regarded as above criticism or attack." It is derived from the Hindu belief that the cow is a sacred animal.

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9

Jesus spoke these words to the scribes and Pharisees after they complained to him that his disciples did not follow the traditions they had established. The religious leaders, in their self-righteous way, established a tradition that required everyone to wash their hands prior to eating. However, they witnessed the disciples NOT abiding by this man-made precept. [NOTE: I recommend everyone wash their hands prior to eating. There is a variety of germs, viruses, bacterium and other contaminants of which we should be wary. We no longer have the "tradition of the elders" to wash hands prior to eating, but we should have the wisdom of mom to do so.]

I can't imagine the exasperation Jesus had in his voice when he called them all "hypocrites." The entire text of Matthew 15 reveals the exchange which took place between Jesus and the Pharisees. The religious leaders felt they could 'willy-nilly' create traditions and mandate that everyone abide by those rules. They also took upon themselves the authority to amend the laws of God. The religious leaders of the time were declaring their own traditions as the methods to serve God ("in vain they do worship me"). They ignored the God-given directions of how to worship him ("teaching for doctrines the commandments of men").

Could you imagine if that were happening today? What if the religious leaders of today were creating their own traditions and expecting everyone else to follow suit just because they said so? Oh wait! They already do… I for one think it is time to "buck" man's tradition. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

THINGS TAUGHT AS BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
BUT ARE ACTUALLY THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN

-We are required to worship on Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday.
-Worship is attending church services, singing a couple songs, taking an offering and listening to a preacher.
-Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. Not celebrating it is cultish.
-Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Sunrise services commemorate Christ's sunrise resurrection.
-Alcohol is ungodly and should be shunned.
-Using words such as shit, damn, hell, fuck, and ass is ungodly.

THINGS NOT FOUND IN GOD'S WORD

-We are required to worship on Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday.
-Worship is attending church services, singing a couple songs, taking an offering and listening to a preacher.
-Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. Not celebrating it is cultish.
-Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Sunrise services commemorate Christ's sunrise resurrection.
-Alcohol is ungodly and should be shunned.
-Using words such as shit, damn, hell, fuck, and ass is ungodly.

I don't mean to be offensive to people, but don't tell me that God wants me to refrain from something if all you can do to prove your point is quote FCC regulations. I am merely pointing out that many of us are not Bible believers, but man followers and actually have no clue why we believe as we do.

All of the above statements can be heard in various organized churches everywhere. I was raised in organized religion and have experienced all of these statements first hand. I have even been told that not celebrating Christmas is "cultish," but not one single Scripture was offered to back-it-up. A preacher once told me that he knows there is no Scriptural mandate to worship on Sunday, but any church whose worship service is not on Sunday is a "cult." In a variety of publications, early church fathers are quoted as the authoritative source for worship on Sunday, but no verses from the Bible are ever given. The Bible teaches us to question authority—not blindly follow it (Acts 17:11)!

Are we required to worship on Sunday and/or observe certain days? No!

What if we were evangelists in a communist or Islamic country? Wouldn't Thursday night at 9:00 p.m. be a safer time to gather? Ignoring the fact that the whole organized church thing is messed up, are believers really required to meet together on Sunday in commemoration of Jesus resurrecting on the first day of the week? Jesus rose at 6:00 p.m. on the last day of the week, not 6:00 a.m. the first day. Matthew 28:1 and John 20:1 both tell us that Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher while it was still dark on the first day of the week and found Jesus was already gone. Do the math. Jesus died just prior to the Passover.

According to Leviticus 23, the Passover was a Sabbath day. The day following the Passover was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It too was a Sabbath. On Sabbath days, no work was to be done, and the Jews were to attend meetings where the Torah was read aloud. The first day of the week is mentioned in the last chapters of the gospels, therefore at the time of Jesus' death there were three Sabbath days in a row. First there was the Passover, second there was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and finally the last day of the week. Jesus was put in the sepulcher on the "preparation day" (the day they prepared for the Sabbath) just prior to the Passover (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42). The Passover went from 6 p.m. (around sundown) on Wednesday to 6 p.m. on Thursday, when the feast of unleavened bread began and went until 6 p.m. on Friday when the weekly Sabbath started and ended at 6 p.m. on Saturday. Jesus said he would be raised after three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). That means 72 hours later. Seventy-two hours takes us to just before 6 p.m. on Saturday. Resurrection day is not Sunday—it's Saturday.

John 20:19 tells us the disciples were in a room with the door shut "for fear of the Jews" on the same day after they found that Jesus was missing. This verse is often used to validate the notion of Sunday worship because they had all gathered together that day. The text clearly states they were gathered there, with the door shut, because they were scared. Matthew 28:8 says they ran from the sepulcher with fear. They knew the Jewish leaders would accuse them of stealing the body of Jesus, and they were hiding until the coast was clear. They were not gathered there worshipping Jesus; they were shaking in their boots.

The Bible never states that the laws and ordinances concerning the Sabbath have been transferred to Sunday. Neither is Sunday the "Lord's Day" mentioned in Revelation 1:10. Get a concordance and look up "Lord's day" and "day of the Lord".

The above examples concerning Sunday worship could also be used regarding Easter. The word Easter is used in the King James Bible in Acts 12:4. All the modern versions and the notes in most KJB's will change the word "Easter" to "Passover." Aside from that being an obvious mistranslation, it is foolish to think that King Herod would concern himself enough with the Passover that he would refrain from killing Peter. It did not bother anyone to kill Jesus at the Passover, why would anyone be so worried about killing Peter on the Sabbath? Easter was actually a Roman day in observance of the fertility goddess Astarte. The early Roman church assimilated this day into its traditions in order to accommodate the pagans of the day. The celebration kept its name, but its practices were adapted by the first century Catholics.

Many will not argue that December 25th is not the day when Jesus was born. Most will admit that figuring it out would be damn near impossible. But do they realize that December 25th was originally the day celebrated by Roman pagans as Saturnalia? It was the birthday of the god Saturn.

The Bible tells us not to be fooled by the "rudiments of the world" (Colossians 2:8). According to Archaic Words and the Authorized Version by Laurence M. Vance, page 294, "rudiments are first attempts or principles, the elements of a subject, foundation or fundamental principles, or an initial or imperfect form, stage, or appearance." Worshipping God is not attending a church gathering service and listening to some preacher rant and rave about how wonderful he is and how horrible everyone else is; and it is far more than mutating pagan festivals into holy days.

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines…We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle…By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks unto his name…to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Hebrews 13:9-16. Jesus said "…the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him…they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" John 4:23, 24. Our worship is suppose to be a personal experience between God and ourselves in our hearts (Philippians 3:3), and it is to be guided by Truth (John 1:14, 17; 14:6; 16:13; 18:37, 38).

For Further study on this matter just check out the following: Exodus 32; I Chronicles 16:7-36; Isaiah 1:10-20; Ezekiel 8; Jeremiah 10:1-5; Matthew 15:1-9; Luke 16:15; I Corinthians 5:7,8; II Corinthians 6:14-17; Galatians 4:7-11; Ephesians 5:6-13; Colossians 2:16-3:4; II Timothy 2:15; 3:15-17.

Have a drink on me.

What about alcohol? Does the Bible really say not to consume alcohol? No, it doesn't. It does, however, warn against being controlled by it.
Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess…"
Proverbs 10:1 "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."

It doesn't say not to drink any sort of alcohol; it says "be not drunk with wine." What does being drunk mean? As always the Bible explains itself:
Genesis 9:21-24 and 19:32 give examples of actual drunkenness. Drunkenness is when someone has consumed enough alcohol that they are unable to take the right decision in matters. Catching a good buzz from a bottle of rum is not the same as being drunk.

Even Jesus turned water into wine, and it wasn't grape juice, it was good old fashion wine:
John 2:3-10 "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

If the translators meant "grape juice" wouldn't they have said "grape juice?" Pretty stupid translators, huh? This section could be so long it would be its own blog. I only have one more point to make before moving on.
Psalms 104:15 …Wine that maketh glad the heart of man…
Proverbs 17:22 A merry heart doeth good like a medicine…

If your best idea of avoiding drunkenness is to not consume alcohol at all—fine. But don't bitch about others who do partake in it. Also keep in mind the hypocrisy you place yourself into when you refuse to partake in intoxicating beverages, but yet you consume sugar and caffeine.

"Watch your mouth young man!"

Bullshit is bullshit no matter what you call it. To tell folks it is "a sin" to use certain words is just plain bullshit. Who came up with the list any way? Who declared certain words should not be said at all? The FCC? Unfortunately this particular dogma is usually based upon a misunderstood word: "profanity."
II Timothy 2:16 "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."

Does this mean we should shun words such as: ass, shit, crap, bastard, et al?
No it doesn't. Simply looking up the actual definition of the word "profanity" will solve this dilemma. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language:
Profane:

PROFA'NE, a. [L. profanus; pro and fanum, a temple.]
1. Irreverent to any thing sacred; applied to persons. A man is profane when he takes the name of God in vain, or treats sacred things with abuse and irreverence.
2. Irreverent; proceeding from a contempt of sacred things, or implying it; as profane words or language; profane swearing.
3. Not sacred; secular; relating to secular things; as profane history.
4. Polluted; not pure.
Nothing is profane that serveth to holy things.
5. Not purified or holy; allowed for common use; as a profane place. Ezek.42. and 48.
6. Obscene; heathenish; tending to bring reproach on religion; as profane fables. 1 Tim.4.
Profane is used chiefly in Scripture in opposition to holy, or qualified ceremonially for sacred services.

PROFA'NE, v.t. To violate any thing sacred, or treat it with abuse, irreverence, obloquy or contempt; as, to profane the name of God; to profane the Sabbath; to profane the Scriptures or the ordinances of God.
1. To pollute; to defile; to apply to temporal uses; to use as base or common. Ezek.24.
2. To violate. Mal.2.
3. To pollute; to debase.Lev.21.
4. To put to a wrong use.

Profanity is anything contrary to or derogatory toward God and his word. The King James Bible uses the words "piss" and "bastard." I don't have a problem with society declaring that certain words should only be used by adults, what I have a problem with is declaring that the use of those words is a violation of Scripture, now that's bullshit.

ARE SOLDIERS DEFENDING OUR ALDULTERATED FREEDOM

This is going to upset a great many folks, and could label me as some terrible, horrible person.
But here goes:

The men and women of the Armed Forces are not fighting for my freedom, your freedom or anyone's freedom for that matter. Before you pick up a patriot rock and hurl it at my head, let me say that I did not mean that in way derogatory toward the military. This country needs a military and I respect those who volunteer for it. It's a damn shame when some constitutionally illiterate sends them off to another country, which did not threaten us, and when the soldiers are killed he declares they died for our country defending our freedom. No they didn't! At best they died for someone else's freedom; at worst they died for some megalomaniac's hunger for power.
The only time (as far as I can figure) a soldier fought for my freedom was a Colonial Soldier during the Revolutionary War, and maybe those soldiers who fought in the War of 1812. How can I say that? Simple. Our sovereignty as a nation was in jeopardy during those wars; and it has not been since. Our ability to live our lives as we choose has not been threatened since we chased the Red Coats across the Atlantic.

If a soldier is fighting for my freedom than why haven't I seen them storm the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, City Hall or the IRS? If they are defending my freedom why can't I smoke a joint without fear of arrest? Why can't I add a patio to my house without the local zoning bureaucracy giving me permission? Why do I need the State to give me permission to carry a gun? Why can't I buy a Cuban cigar to puff on the next time I go fishing without a fishing license? Why were Congress and the White House able to pass FISA and the Patriot Act without a rocket launcher pointed in their direction? And while I'm at it, why can't I buy booze on Sunday here in Indiana? Why wasn't the Supreme Court shown a little "Shock and Awe" when they declared the government could steal our property for any reason it damn well pleases? I am also tired of the bumper stickers and billboards which read "Enjoy your freedom? Thank a vet." Though I respect the men and women who serve in the military and believe they should receive far better compensation; they are not the guarantors of my freedom.

After the Vietnam War, I do hate the way the returning soldiers were treated by many people—that was wrong. However, it was just as wrong to mistreat the "draft dodger" when they returned from Canada. On one side you had the soldiers who felt it was their duty to obey an unconstitutional draft and kill or be killed in Vietnam, because Uncle Sam told them to. On the other hand you had those whose conscience would not let them take part in an illegal war and fled their homeland to keep from being forced to kill someone. Frankly, I'm not sure who had more guts.

Here are just a few nuggets to chew on concerning some of the wars this country has been involved in:

The Mexican/American War was started over "Manifest Destiny"--the notion that the U.S. had a God-given right to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific. President Polk believed in "Manifest Destiny" and after his offer to purchase California was turned down by Mexico, he sought about gaining it by force. Where the politicians at the time came up with the notion is beyond me, and it certainly is not sufficient reason to send troops to die for.
The Spanish/American War was spawned by a "false flag" operation which caused the sinking of the USS Maine. To this day the actual cause of the Maine's sinking is in question, but it was most certainly the justification the U.S. government wanted to declare war on Spain. From this war the U.S. gained control over more land: Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. I am of the opinion that blood is far too high a price to pay for land.

On the morning of December 7, 1941 the U.S. was not officially involved in World War II, but it was dabbling in it. In 1940 the U.S. Navy was enforcing an oil embargo to Japan. One must wonder if Japan was actually instigated into attacking Pearl Harbor. Would the U.S. have entered the war had Japan not attacked? At the time the American people were against it, but the politicians (in particular FDR) was all for it. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor had the U.S. not had an embargo against them? Of course there is the very real possibility that FDR had foreknowledge of the attack and did nothing about it, thus guaranteeing the U.S. entering the war. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox has gone on record to make this possibility seem far more likely to be true. "Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me... that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they felt the Allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan — to get out of China, for example — were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States. All her preparations in a military way — and we knew their over-all import — pointed that way." (Vice Admiral Frank E. Beatty, "Another Version of What Started the War with Japan," U. S. News and World Report, May 28, 1954, p. 48.)

The Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought all because of the meddling of the CIA. The CIA was entrenched in both countries attempting to subvert their governments. The claim at the time was to thwart the growing communist movements in both countries. Hey! That worked out didn't it?!

The prelude to the Vietnam War was an alleged attack on U.S. ships in North Vietnamese waters on August 2, 1964. The U.S. citizens were told that a ship had been torpedoed by North Vietnamese forces and President Johnson used this as a pretext for war. In a Sony Pictures presentation titled "The Fog of War" U.S. Defense Secretary at-the-time Robert S. McNamara admitted that this incident never happened—U.S. ships were not attacked. This was another false flag operation sending more soldiers to their deaths.

In the 1990's President Bill Clinton sent troops into the former Yugoslavia in an attempt to stop rival factions from killing each other. Why? Allegedly, to put a halt to genocide. But the fighting amongst these groups has been going on since who knows how long. Catholics killing Muslims killing protestants killing catholics killing protestants killing muslims killing catholics. A vicious cycle—yes--but a vicious cycle that was none of our business. How was the death of our soldiers in this conflict for our freedom? It wasn't.

Now we have soldiers dying in Iraq for mythical WMD's. The only think Iraq was guilty of was refusing American dollars for their oil and only accepting Euros. Yes, it's for oil. U.S. soldiers died so that the U.S. government could give Exxon Mobil (U.S.), Shell (Netherlands), Total (France) and BP (England) no-bid contracts for Iraq's oil

(http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1816599,00.html)…so much for "Iraqi
Freedom."

An Analogy

Dear Fellow American,

Recently I voluntarily joined the security team of a very large firm. I was required to sign a four year contract with them and could be recalled to service up to five years after the end of our contract. This firm is well known for its arrogance and hostile actions and previous CEO's have a history of misusing the security for their own gains. Fortunately, the newest CEO is a religious man and would never misuse his power. By signing with this firm I must relinquish my civil rights, promise to devote my every waking moment to the firm, never speak poorly of the firm, and be experimented upon without my knowledge or permission, run the risk of being killed by a rival firm and all for a meager salary. I knew all of this before I signed, but I was raised believing this was the right thing to do. I joined the firm's security team with a sense of great pride and worth.

The CEO of the firm has ultimate control over the security force and can use it pretty much as he pleases—good thing he's a religious man. According to the firm's by-laws the security force is not to be used against another firm without approval from the board-of-trustees, and only as a defense against aggression. Recently our CEO took it upon himself to send us to another firm and ordered us to take control over it and kill anyone who stood in our way. We did as we were told, after all "ours is not to reason why…". We were sent to this other firm because our firm had recently thwarted a hostile take-over. Our CEO was informed by other employees of our firm that the other firm had a hand in the take-over. That actually ended up not being true, and the employees who misinformed our CEO have now been promoted to executive positions—that'll teach them. Even though we took over the other firm on false pretenses, it was actually a good thing because their CEO wasn't a nice guy. They also produce Smoil and Smoil is very important to our firm.

Our firm manufactures Laws-a-lot and some how Smoil is used in the process. Laws-a-lot is a substance used to confine people, restrict freedom or to prohibit certain unsavory practices. Without Smoil, Laws-a-lot would cease to exist—and we cannot have that.

Unfortunately the employees of the other firm resent and hate us and have been causing us a bit of trouble. For some reason they have not appreciated us sticking our firm's nose into the business of their firm. We are just as shocked as you are. Go figure?

I am writing to let you know that we could really use your support right now. If you could maybe put a bumper sticker on your car or a sign in your window, we would really appreciate it. After all, we did invade and take-over the other firm for you!

Sincerely,
A. Gullible American

SO WHAT'S GOING ON IN GEORGIA ANYWAY?

What's going on in Georgia? Aside from the Atlanta Braves having a season reminiscent of the 1980's, the Atlanta Falcons being embarrassed by Michael Vick, the continued drought and former Georgia representative Bob Barr running for president as a Libertarian, not much.

The little country of Georgia which sits on two continents on the other hand…

Georgia has had an "off and on again" existence since the 11th century. It always seemed to succumb to various empires around it; the Mongols, the Ottomans, the Persians and finally the Soviet Union. Georgia was engulfed into the Soviet Union in 1922. It gained its independence in 1991 after the fall of communism. Georgia has been a rather unstable region for the past millennia.

South Ossetia has been attempting to break free from Georgia since the early 20th century. A year before Georgia declared its independence from Russia, South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia and held its own elections. The Georgian Supreme Soviet declared the elections illegal and cancelled the results. Since 1918 these factions have been killing each other over ones desire for autonomy and the others for power. Abkhazia is another territory which has sought its independence from Georgia. In 1992 Abkhazia declared its independence from Georgia and the fight has been going on since. Georgia was able to obtain its independence from Russia, but for some reason forbids South Ossetia or Abkhazia the same privilege.

Russia has supported the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and has provided them with Russian peace keeping forces. Georgia has declared both to be Russian occupied territories. The Bush Administration has been courting Georgia for admission into NATO and has declared the country to be a friend of the U.S. One must wonder if the pipelines carrying Black Sea and Caspian Sea crude are the real reason for the love.

In June and July of 2008 both Georgia and Russia began a contest of "saber-rattling" and muscle flexing. Georgia with the aid of the U.S. began military exercises, allegedly to prepare Georgian forces for an Iran invasion. At the same time Russia started military exercises of practicing the movement of personnel and armored units into South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In early August Georgia and South Ossetia began trading pot shots at each other until on the seventh; Georgia invaded Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia. Georgia sent more than 15,000 troops into South Ossetia apparently wanting to end the long-time quarrel with one fell swoop. However, they also ran into the Russian peace-keeping troops stationed there. With only around 500 troops they were easily defeated, but the slaughter brought down the wrath of the Russian army. By the eighth, one day later, Georgian troops were seen running for their lives deeper into Georgian territory. Russia was not content with bloodying Georgia's nose; they went on to royally kick their ass. A cease fire has been brokered for the time being by France president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Various talking heads have stated that Russia was not acting in self-defense or in the defense of the South Ossetian people, but is preparing to annex the territory into its empire. How can they say that? They can't. Could Russia say the same thing about the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Yes. Of course the puppet government of Iraq would deny they are a part of the U.S. Empire, but they are a puppet regime…what are they suppose to say? The U.S. doesn't recognize the secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia any way so it has no alternative but to pity Georgia and accuse Russia of fragmenting the small nation. Don't forget, the U.S. government has not approved of secession since it broke free from the British Empire. Some of the states down south attempted to secede from the U.S. union and were thwarted by Lincoln in his war of northern aggression. Not to mention both territories ally themselves with Russia and not the West, they can't have more allies than the U.S. now, can they?

This is in no means a defense of Russia. Russia has already proven they can be very heavy-handed and brutal when it comes to territories they truly want—see Chechnya for example. It would appear, for some reason, the world has two giants both posturing for a fight. The Bush Administration has been thumbing its nose at Russia by wooing Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia with promises of NATO membership and even signing a missile defense deal with Poland which would place U.S. missiles in that country. What did Bush expect Russia to do, sit on its hands and watch as the U.S. built a wall around them? As for the reason why Russia supports the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Russia is a sovereign nation and can support or despise whomever it pleases, and it doesn't answer to the U.S. as to why.

When it comes to the goings on in the Southern Caucasus, the U.S. should mind its own damn business. When it comes to the relationship of Russia with its neighbors, again, the U.S. should mind its own damn business. Until the U.S. can control its own desire to fulfill the foolish "manifest destiny" it should avoid bad-mouthing other countries in search of the same thing. One thing the U.S. government has a surplus of is hypocrisy...

"In war, truth is the first casualty." ~Aeschylus

"War grows out of the desire of the individual to gain advantage at the expense of his fellow man." ~Napoleon Hill"

We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace." ~Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth." ~Mark Twain

"Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country." ~Bertrand Russell, attributed

"You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time." ~Albert Einstein

DIMES AND INSANITY

A question I have asked of many people and have never received a solid answer to is: "Why continually vote for lying, stealing, cheating, warmongering and philandering bastards if you can help it?"


My point is, why would anyone continue to cast his or her vote for either a Democrat or Republican considering that many (if not most) members of both parties habitually lie, steal, cheat, abuse authority and/or have sex with juveniles? Would you willingly join a club known for all of the above? I wouldn't want anything to do with the club, let alone join and support it. But that's exactly what every member of the Republican Party and Democrat Party do, as well as all who support them. By aligning themselves with these parties they have joined a club known for its corruption and apparently do not mind.


Many people are sick of the Republicans or Democrats but refuse to break free from them and turn to a Third Party. Why? Because they fear doing so would cause "the other guy" to win. What about the voters? When are we as voters going to win for once? Why should we continue to vote for either of the two big parties which have proven they are nothing more than thieving "snake oil salesmen?" Do people think that with every election if they continue to vote the way they have for years it will bring about change? It never has and it never will. Einstein once said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is what happens every time a Republican or Democrat faithful pulls the tab for these parties.


When either party is in office: government expands, freedoms dwindle, the status quo continues and people bitch and moan about it the entire time. When I mention I am a member of the Libertarian Party and have voted for them since 1996 I am accused of throwing away my vote, and told that I might as well have cast a vote for the other guy. How do they figure? I don't want any of the candidates from the two big parties to win—period! Why would I cast my vote for "the lesser of two evils" when there is a third, fourth or even fifth or sixth choice? Why should I cast my vote for a candidate I completely disagree with and cause that person to think I do agree with them? I don't approve of the actions or records of the Republicans or Democrats, why would I give them my "seal of approval"—AKA, my vote? To those religious folks who vote for "the lesser of two evils" remember Romans 12:9 "...Abhor that which is evil..."


Many bemoan my consternation about other's voting habits by saying "Well if a third party were voted into office they would also become lying, stealing, and conniving SOB's." How could we possibly know that?! We have no way of knowing whether this is true or not because people refuse to try it out. Instead they would prefer to vote for those who have already proven themselves to be scoundrels. I am accused of wasting my vote?!


I use to tell people if you don't vote you can't complain. I think I should change it to "if you don't vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican—don't bitch because you did it to yourself." My car's bumper sticker reads "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."


Some will say "I support the party with a platform which closely resembles my personal beliefs and ideals." Really? How's that working out for you? How many voters have actually read the platforms of his or her chosen political party? When was the last time you found your particular party even following their own platform? Have you considered reading the platforms of any third parties? Many voters would probably be surprised to find there is quite likely a Third Party platform which is closer to their ideals than that of the Republicans or Democrats.


The United States is nothing more than a two party dictatorship. The two big parties claim to be better than each other and rant and rave over their differences, but in actions they prove they are nothing more than two wings of the same bird, flying in the wrong direction. There hasn't been "a dime's worth of difference" between these two parties since before George Wallace said it back in 1968. Here is a short example of the two presidential candidates from the two big parties.


McCain
Gun Owners of America gave him an F for his record (2006)
Supports embryonic stem-cell research
Believes in global warming
Supports spying on Americans (FISA)
Supports faith-based initiatives
Amnesty for illegals
Supports Georgia in-spite of Georgian aggression
Will not bring ALL troops home
He's an imperialist
Supports the Real ID Act
Charles H. Keating, Jr.
He's a lying SOB: www.therealmccain.com
Claims Obama is inexperienced then picks Palin as his VP.

Obama
100% anti-gun voting record per Gun Owners of America
Supports embryonic stem-cell research
Believes in global warming
Supports spying on Americans (FISA)
Supports faith-based initiatives
Amnesty for illegals
Supports Georgia in-spite of Georgian aggression
Will not bring ALL troops home
He's an imperialist
Supports the Real ID Act
Antoin "Tony" Rezko
He's a lying SOB: www.obamatruth.org
Claims he wants change then chooses Biden as his VP.

The similarities don't stop there, the info is out there, check it out.

The similarity between the two parties is not limited to the executive branch either. The Freedom Index published twice annually by The New American rates congressmen and congresswomen "based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements." This is to say; the higher the number—the stronger a congressperson's commitment to the United States Constitution (you know—that piece of paper they swear to uphold).


The members of the 109th Congress with a majority of Republicans in both houses and a Republican executive, averaged a rating of: 35.5 out of 100 in the Senate and 37.5 out of 100 in the House of Representatives. The most recent 110th Congress rating with a majority of Democrats in both houses averaged: 38 for the Senate and 40 for the House. (NOTE: The only member of Congress to reach a 100 in the Index was Rep. Ron Paul.)


It's about time voters told the two big parties "No more!" and turned their backs on them; then turned to another party—ANY party. One does not need to break out the shovel to find dirt on two big party presidential candidates.


McCain:


McCain claims his VP pick will help him clean up DC. He's been a senator for over 30 years, he's one of the reasons DC is so broken and corrupt in the first place. How does he plan to fix something he took part in breaking?


In 2004 he told Tony Snow that John Kerry did not ask him to be his running mate; but now in 2008 he admitted on ABC cameras that Kerry did indeed ask him, but he turned it down. Joe Lieberman (former Democrat Senator) was on his list of possible VP choices. Why is he considered a conservative?


How about his personal life? He returned to the U.S. after being held as a POW to find that his wife had been involved in an accident, she was a few inches shorter and had put on some weight. So what did he do? He had an affair with his now current wife who happens to be a wealthy heiress of Hensley and Company, one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the United States.


Has anyone ever figured out exactly how many houses this elitist truly owns? Has McCain's staff told him yet?


Obama:


Obama's rhetoric of change took an odd turn when he chose a 35 year veteran of the Senate. Is that his idea of change?
Within months after being elected to the Senate, Obama's wife, who works for a not-for-profit hospital in Chicago, received a pay raise of $195,000.00. Was that just a cost of living increase or something else?


The Obamas bought a mansion for $1.65 million. It is reasonable to assume however, that Tony Rezko made them a deal they couldn't refuse. That being the case, they aren't elitists at all; they're bargain shoppers.


Obama insulted small-town America when talking about plant closures he said "They (small-town residents) cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…as a way to explain their frustrations." (I think he just said small town folks are gun-toting, fanatical racists—I think.) But his wife took part in a decision to close a food plant in small town La Junta, Colorado which laid-off nearly 150 (mostly Hispanic) people. Hmm?


Joseph Farah, editor of the World Net Daily website (www.wnd.com) wrote a book and is supporting a movement titled None of the Above. I wish he would have spent more time educating his readers on the merits of Third Parties instead of pointing out the atrocities of the McCain and Obama. But nevertheless, it does give McCain and Obama the proverbial black-eye they deserve. Farah has, of course, been vilified by faithful republicans and relegated to obscurity by die-hard democrats.


Without further ado, here's a little education about some Third Parties:


The Green Party


Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party's nominee. I was hoping she
would be chosen. Though I would never vote for McKinney due to our differences in politics, I respect and like her. I liked her tenacity when she was in Congress and faced-off against Rumsfield and Chaney over the Iraq Fiasco—I mean war. I also appreciate all she's done for the 911 Truth Movement. For more info about McKinney and the Green Party go to www.gp.org.


The Constitution Party


Fellow Hoosier Chuck Baldwin is the candidate for this party. He takes a strong stand for bigger liberty and smaller government. He is the pastor of a church in Florida, I wouldn't vote for him due to this, but I am glad he defeated pro-war Alan Keys in the Constitution Party's convention. Check out him and this party at www.constitutionparty.com.


The Libertarian Party


Is the LP pro abortion, pro same sex marriage or pro drug use? No. The LP is pro liberty and personal responsibility. The LP stands for the individual's right to smoke a joint or do whatever they damn well please as long as they do not harm anyone else. The LP does not wish to see a particular group's morality legislated over anyone else's.


Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr is the candidate for the LP. Barr and his running mate Wayne Allyn Root were my third and fourth (respectively) choices from the list of possible candidates. I had to do some real soul searching before putting my support behind Barr, who at one time was "public-enemy-number-one of the Libertarian Party." Barr has openly admitted that he made mistakes while in Congress and took several wrong decisions but wants to do all he can to reverse the damage he caused. I respect that. I know I am far from perfect and make mistakes as well. I would rather vote for someone who doesn't hide his mistakes by waffling and back-peddling and owns up to them.


This is the party I personally support; and I recommend you check it out for yourself at www.lp.org, www.theadvocates.org and www.bobbarr2008.com.


Other Third Parties and Presidential Candidates


There is a plethora of other Third Party, independent and write-in candidates voters can choose from: Ralph Nader and the Natural Law Party; Alan Keys, an independent; Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party; Gene Amondson with the Prohibition Party; Roger Calero and the Socialist Workers Party; Ted Weill on the Reform Party ticket; and many more.


In this day and age voters have a real chance to become educated before pulling that lever in November. There are thousands of objective blogs, websites and articles one can read. Youtube is packed with videos featuring the candidates waffling and being stupid. Hell we can even go to their own websites and see what they have to say—it's quite amazing the difference between their lip-service and their actual actions.


Voters should never rely on main stream media (NPR, CNN, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al) for objective information about whom to vote for. Take it from this homeschooling dad—do your own homework or you're grounded.

www.thirdpartywatch.com

http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/index.php?id=67,397,0,0,1,0

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/03/10/john-mccain-the-chameleon/955/

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/print

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Obama_and_McCain_have_the_same_foreign_policy

http://www.countercurrents.org/gatto100608.htm

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/79/barr-blasts-mccain-obama-for-supporting-national-id-again-urges-congress-to-repeal-real-id-act

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/07/03/the-ron-paul-paul-o-meter-barack-obama-measured/1240/

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/07/07/the-ron-paul-paul-o-meter-john-mccain/1247/

www.gunowners.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131749320080411?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

http://www.obamatruth.org/Mrs%20O%20-%20The%20truth%20about%20Michelle%20Obamas%20working%20class%20credentials.htm

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/14/is-obama-an-elitist.aspx