Obama's desperate "His choice" ad — another great response

(See here)

Don't miss these: 10/31/08

Anything of interest going on, being said? Oh, yeah:

• Victor Davis Hanson has a devastating essay lamenting (and documenting) the end of journalism. I'll add an even sadder note, though: as in church, so in journalism. If people didn't enable it, things would change. We've seen even here, folks drop in and adamantly resist any line of information, facts, or reason contrary to the MSM meme. They'll take a post that contains documentation exploding an MSM-manufactured myth, and simply repeat the myth. These folks are complicit in journalism's demise.
• Related? Obama campaign kicks out reporters from outlets that did not endorse him. The Times itself reports.
  
• Andrew McCarthy has a lengthy and compelling scoff at the LA Times' claim of "ethics" in withholding the tape of Obama and the terrorists/terrorism supporters. He calls on the Times to release either a tape or a transcript. I think he lets them off far too easy. I'd never trust a transcript from the Times.
• Keep your eyes on the shiny watch. You are growing sleepy... sleepy... sleeeeepy.... And what does The Other Paper of Record find critical to report on, this Friday before election day? What did its tireless investigative reporters unearth? Did they locate Obama's drug-dealer? His birth-certificate? His academic records? The LAT video? No, no no. No, they find "growing doubts" about fitness to serve. Ah, at least that's about Obama, right? The man who has accomplished nothing, and written two books about it? The question-mark? The most liberal empty suit in the Senate? The man with genuinely frightening alliances? No again; what am I thinking? This is the MSM! This is The NY Times! Remember the meme! No, they write about "growing doubts" about the only person on this ticket with executive experience, whose accomplishments far dwarf Obama's nothings. But you read this blog! You already knew that, didn't you? Somehow, they claim to have found souls dim-witted enough to say, "Because I have doubts about the GOP #2 candidate, I will vote for the far LESS-qualified Donk candidate." Ah, behold govenment re-education camps at work.
• Obama tries to channel Tony Soprano; America's enemies snicker. The One vows, "We will finally finish the fight and snuff out Al Qaeda and bin Laden, those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11." Yes, of course. But, also of course, if he even tries, our enemies know in advance that it will be only if it isn't too hard, and if it doesn't take too long, and if it doesn't make him unpopular with the extreme left wing of the Democratic party.
• Charles Krauthammer lodges another powerful argument for McCain, and against Obama.
• Is McCain just Bush 3? Ezra Klein says "No." I say, "Duh."
• John Hawkins offers thirty reasons to vote for John McCain. Won't persuade trolls, but... what would?
  

UPDATES:

• John Podhoretz gives ten reasons why McCain might win.
• Susan Estrich says that, if Obama loses, it's because you're a racist. (Remember, I told you so.)
  

"Confession of an Obama blogger"

(NOTE: "Don't miss these: 10/31/08" will go up a bit later, Lord willing. It will be a busy day here; keep checking back.)

I'll say two things up-front:

1. I wonder if this is legit, and wish it could be verified.
2. It makes perfect sense, and fits both what I've seen elsewhere, and experienced here.

"Sarah P" (not her real name) writes on Hillbuzz that she works, with less and less joy, on the Obama campaign. And she details what they have paid people to do, in order to suppress support for John McCain, and help Obama deceive his way to greater power.

Among her revelations/claims:

The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama” [Sound familiar?]

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

...we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

....[The intention is] make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

...There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

...Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized. [Me, too]

...I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain.

Are you wondering what I'm wondering?

Happy Reformation Day!

Today marks a glorious turn in God's dealings with the world. Today, God used a deeply flawed man, Martin Luther, to wield a hammer in a way that objectively broke Rome's stranglehold on the human soul, and liberated the Gospel from it's countless obscuring layers of tradition.

Do you go freely to a Baptist / Presbyterian / E Free / miscellaneous / independent church that preaches the Word of God faithfully, preaching the free Gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ alone, received through faith alone? And do Roman Catholic armies not break down the doors and throw you all into prison, or burn you all at the stake?

Then thank God for this man, for Martin Luther, and for what He did to and through him. The world you live in is not the world he lived in, and that because of this widespread movement of God.

What does Luther teach us? Many things. To single out but a few: to be used of God, you do not have to be might. You do not have to be perfect. You do not have to start with the majority at your back.

What you need is the Word of God, and that you cling to it faithfully and boldly.

Luther undid Rome, and he still does. Mention him to Romanists, and the apologists become unhinged. They cite this and that absurd and foolish thing that Luther said or did; and, sadly, Luther said and did more than his share of foolish things.

But even this undoes them. I always respond in two ways:

1. Imagine that. So foolish, so weak — and yet even Martin Luther could grasp the Biblical gospel of justification by grace alone though faith alone in Christ alone. What does that say about Rome and all its scholars, who still deny and pervert that Gospel?
   
2. Thank God we're not chained to human tradition, and bound to repeat the errors of our elders — as Roman Catholics, by definition, are! Thank God for the Word and its liberating power and supremacy!

Now some Reformation links for your edification:

• First, Pyromaniacs is back in business, and I've offered a few thoughts
• Piper on Luther is excellent reading
  
• Reformation Day thoughts, chuckles, challenges
• Marking the Reformation
  

"Dear Mr. Obama"

Watch to the end.

(Pointed out to me by Jules.)

"I was born that way... so it's OK" (Josef Fritzi, "gays," and us)

Why do homosexuals work so hard to say that their disordered affections are genetic, that their "orientation" is determined by DNA? It's been transparent to most, I think, that the notion of determinism removes moral onus. If you "don't have to be that way," then you carry the responsibility for being that way. If it isn't a choice, then you're unaccountable. The activists don't want that; they want acceptance, enabling free indulgence of their perversion. Ergo....

They gin up scientific studies (which later prove to be bogus) locating the cause of homosexuality in the brain, somewhere. Mission Accomplished.

This tactic clashes with the other arm of their public assault on public moral borders. This approach labors hard to portray the homosexual lifestyle as beautiful, happy, wonderful, and... well, gay! (IOW, you'd be nuts not to choose it if you could.) If only people would stop being so mean to these happy, carefree souls, everything would be peachy.

Increasingly, Biblically-faithful Christians have begun to mount a different response than proving homosexuality not to be hard-wired. We've focused on arguing that it doesn't really matter, morally. The specific case I've made, a number of times, is that we're all hard-wired for sin.

For instance, it's been often indicated that men are not by nature monogamous. Yet most have not argued that this rationalizes adultery. "I was born that way" isn't a great cover. Don't try it at home, or anywhere else.

I've also made the argument, "If that behavior is acceptable, because it's natural to you — then why doesn't the same argument work for lying, theft, child molesting, rape?" Add a sprinkling of Darwinian evolution, subtract the Biblical worldview, and I think you have an air-tight theoretical case.

And so now along comes a monstrous figure named Josef Fritzi. I'll let you read of his abominations here, rather than rehearsing them.

In explaining himself to a psychologist, Fritzi says that he was "was born to be a rapist."

Now, my questions for homosexual agenda activists, so desperate to force their particular perversion down the gullet of every society on the planet:

1. Can you prove Frtizi wasn't "born to be a rapist"?
2. If he was "born to be a rapist," does that make Frtizi's behavior okay?
3. If not, why not? Because it's immoral? How do you know?
4. If your argument is that what feels natural must be right, how would you tell Josef Fritzi that what he is doing is not right?

Biblical Christianity has the whole answer.

Might people be born inclined to perverse desires? Oh, yes. Not might, but are — without exception.

Originally, man was designed to represent God (Genesis 1:26-28). That is what is natural, in that it is what we were created and designed for: to be a whole, fully-integrated reflection of the glory of God. But while "God made man upright...they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The first, righteous man plunged into sin (Romans 5:12).

Sin brought dis-integration. Sin marred the image. The fall into sin hard-wired all of Adam's progeny into a predisposition in the wrong direction, body and soul.

And so, the truth is, we're all born with perverse desires. We're all born dominated by the desire to be gods, to make our wills absolute, to turn away from the true God and to our own ways (Genesis 3:5; 5:3; Romans 3:1-18).

Those desires for self-deification are perverse desires, they're unnatural desires. They are every bit as deviant as the desires of the rapist, the murderer, the child molester, the homosexual. In fact, they are worse, because they are the fountainhead of all those other desires (Romans 1:18-32).

You look at Josef Fritzi, and you recoil in horror. You see a wreck. Fritzi needs something, badly.

But what Fritzi needs is the same as the moralistic atheist, the New Age navel-gazer, the fuzzy PoMo, or the walking question-mark, who reads these words. Fritzi needs reconciliation to God. He needs his sins to be dealt with; but not only that, he needs the womb of those sins plucked out and replaced. He needs a new heart, a new nature. He needs to be born again.

Fritzi needs what you need, what we all need. He needs what can be found only in Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ was born without those perverse desires. Only Jesus Christ was motivated, 24/7/365, by pure, God-given, genuinely natural desires for the glory and will of God above all. Only Jesus Christ was without sin, and with the perfect righteousness we lack.

And so, Jesus Christ could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins, a sacrifice of infinite value and supernatural efficacy.

Interested in knowing more?

Read this.

Don't miss these: 10/30/08

Things at work are a bit nuts. I'll toss these up as today's morsels, try to update and maybe add graphics later:

• The Obama cult: Fouad Ajami discusses how Obama's crowds most remind him of third world assembles that "[come] forth to affirm [their] faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right." Ajami is another who notes that "[t]he political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish." Obama's legions mind him of "the tragedy of Arab political culture[, which] has been the unending expectation of the crowd -- the street, we call it -- in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness." Further, further, he laments that "those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies."
• Great; Kerry wanted to make us more like France; Obama's making us more like the Arab world. Maybe this is why Rep. Michelle Bachmann's concern that some Democrats — like, oh, say, Obama — might harbor anti-American sentiments (duh!) so infuriated the Dems.
  
• A very interesting report (and more News You Won't Hear) from Democratic Hillary! supporters who are working hard and with great conviction to elect John McCain — and they're absolutely convinced McCain's going to take Pennsylvania. Hope they're wrong about McCain pairing too closely with Hillary!; hope they're right about Pennsylvania. (Thanks for the heads-up, Tim.)
• Steve Chapman lets out a well-kept secret: Obama's economic premise is dead-wrong. Unfortunately, he doesn't give appropriate credit to Bush and his policies.
• One of the ideas that will be argued about in months or years to come: was McCain right in deciding not to defend Bush in any way? Here's my penny's worth: right or wrong, he was following perhaps Bush's greatest single mistake. He never took serioiusly the need to defend himself, to get his viewpoint and accomplishments out. I hate — hate — to have to say this, but that is one thing The Nameless One was absolutely excellent at. Bush should have learned from it. TNO erred by not focusing sufficiently on governing, but he was right in that he never stopped campaigning, and had a very aggressive squad on instant-response to make sure that his perspective dominated.
• Yesterday we saw the claim that Obama's efforts to seduce and deceive evangelicals had been found insulting, and rejected. Today, evidence that Obama's pro-abort extremism has made him appropriately radioactive to most evangelicals. I would say, to all evangelicals who are even trying to think Biblically and rationally. And to the foolish argument that there is no difference — the nation's largest infanticide-merchant begs to differ. Obama gets a 100% rating. McCain? Zero. Now, there's a "zero" to be proud of.

UPDATES:

• Surprise, surprise. Remember O-campaign's scoffing at McCain linking Obama to Acorn and election fraud? Turns out that Obama's connections to Acorn are "extensive," and they "helped turbocharge his political career."
• Frankly, I think the constant drip of McCain camp scapegoating Palin stories (like this half-witty but too half-witted one) are baloney. It's hard to believe anyone who makes a living in politics is truly that stupid. Sarah Palin is a major reason McCain is still even in this race. But he is being advised by folks that dim, (A) they should be fired immediately, and (B) it certainly explains why what should have been a near cake-walk has been such difficult slogging.
• This is just funny. It's a slap-back at the Democrat-activist/hatemonger/faux-Baptists of Westboro.
• Voting for Obama to prove you're not racist? Doesn't count! (So says O's future attorney general [?].)
• Is "idiot" too strong a word? I look and look at this from The Luminous One, and... see what you can make of it

John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic. Y'know, I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness. Y'know, the next thing I know, they're gonna find evidence of my communistic tendencies because I shared my toys in kindergarten -- cause I split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich with my friend in sixth grade.

So... it's selfish not to want the government to confiscate more of my hard-earned money, mostly to give to bureaucrats, and some to butchering babies? Interesting unintentional admission that his policies will not be in my best interests. And... voluntary sharing is communism, or any sentient being would say that it is? I just... I... and we're supposed to think that Sarah Palin is dim? Oh, my. Oh my oh my oh my.

• Rich Lowry has an excellent idea: "A traveling journalist should ask [Obama] whether he's willing to call on the LA Times to release the Khalidi tape, and if not, why not."
• Interesting: well, today I have heard Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Steyn all state positively that they believed John McCain would win. Steyn said he was confident tnat "McCain and — God bless her! — Sarah Palin" could pull it out. I said I thought McCain would win, over at Justin Taylor's blog - though it's my hope talking. I certainly believe it's possible; I'm horrified by the alternative. But there you have it thus far.
• [Parody alert in 3... 2... 1....] LA Times: Obama dined with murderers! Or what do you make of their latest excuse for not merely showing the video? The Times has no problem with jeopardizing American security - but Obama's candidacy? No no no.
  

McCain and Obama: their choices

Obama says:

Then comes the response:

Game, set, match.

Don't miss these: 10/29/08 — PART TWO

Gosh, there are so many great (and/or funny) things still popping, and I don't want any to get buried. So check part one, and then check these:

• I start with a point I thought worth lifting and featuring from the previous update — More News You Won't Hear: Jewish "pro-choice" Democrat woman for McCain. Do not miss this, it is very well-written and well-reasoned. Here are a few pulls: "I now know that defeating global terrorism is the single most important issue of our time. ...As I said to the PBS interviewer but what was edited out, 'my daughters won't have reproductive or many other rights if they are dead or burka'ed.'" "...Obama's pastor scares me a whole lot more than anything Sarah Palin has ever said or done" (see fuller quotation under the Wright video post below). "So this Jewish pro-choice Democrat is going to vote for McCain/Palin because they know who are our friends and who are our enemies. And they are prepared to do what is needed to each."
• This one's just funny, mostly. Obama muffs a reference to a black sitcom. Still... imagine if McCain or Palin had done it? Do you think we'd be hearing about that? Ohh, yeah. Definitely. (Before I could post this, Michelle Malkin also caught and Malkinized it.)
  
• Dick Morris (who was guilty of helping The Nameless One gain office) and Eileen McGann suggest that undecideds may well settle on McCain.
• Poster Biochemky assembles some quotations as to why some blacks will be voting for McCain.
• Michael Medved says that values voters may bring a pro-McCain surprise on election day. They certainly should. I hope Medved's right that "Obama efforts at “Christian outreach” have largely failed, recognized as a phony, manipulative and, ultimately, insulting strategy. They have been "insulting," yet a smattering of commenters at various Christian blogs indicate tangly, emotionalistic thought-processes.
• Jennifer Rubin offers ten reasons why McCain could still win.
  

What McCain should do before the InfoBamercial

McCain should make a thirty-second ad and run it just before O's infomercial, on each of the stations.

It should say,

"The following Obama campaign spot paid for by Barack Obama's broken campaign-finance promise, and openly fraudulent internet donations. For straight talk, ethics, and promises that mean something, vote McCain/Palin."

UPDATE: I now find that, of course, Mark Steyn has said it better. He calls it a "Messiahmercial," and simply titles his comment, "This message brought to you by M Biskup, S Hussein and A Hitler" (names used successfully to submit fraudulent donations to The One).

Don't miss these: 10/29/08

Presenting today's opening potpourri:

• A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on is going to be voting for McCain. Watch for that on the major media. Or rather... don't. It doesn't fit The Narrative.
• Also of no interest to the MSM, Jack Cashill has been steadily making the case that Obama's name-making book Dreams from My Father had an uncredited ghost-writer. Cashill says that the heart of his message is "is that Barack Obama is an impostor, the Milli Vanilli of politics, a man who has been lip-synching for the last 13 years to lyrics pre-recorded by, among others, Bill Ayers." He's been putting his thesis, which actually thrust itself upon him when he wasn't looking for it, to various scientific tests, and it's being confirmed. MSM resources re too heavily invested in crucial matters such as what the GOP pays for Palin's clothes and Joe the Plumber's newspaper bills, so you'll have to check alternative media to get the fuller story. Thank God for free speech; and expect it to be a major target of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika if this election is more judgment than blessing.
• So far, I find that people who sneer at the suggestion are those who never read his arguments. Well, that certainly is a time-saver!
  
• The Lost Angeles Times wing of the Obama campaign continues to suppress information that might be damaging to its candidate. But don't worry, it's because of their goodness and wonderfulness (they say). Nothing to see here, move along, peasant.
• Scott Ott has some fun with this over at Scrappleface. Note to the humor-challenged: this is P-A-R-O-D-Y.
• Same subject, but not funny. In the Boston Herald, Michael Graham laments the death of even the semblance of objective journalism, as marked by this campaign.
• I think there are two kinds of people, at present: those who deny leftward media bias, and honest, informed, rational people.
• Relatedly: the wonderful Mona Charen laments the astonishing level of denial in the Jewish community when it comes to Obama who, by any objective measure, is not their friend.
• No less sad nor irrational is the level of black support for Obama, who is an enthusiastic enabler of the quiet black genocide that is abortion. Ironic, offensive to hear, but true: Obama is no friend to the black community, either.
• Thomas Sowell has been steadily documenting and building a devastating case against Obama. Here he just touches the tip of the iceberg of the disaster Obama would be to the court-system.
• From the Washington Post, Michael Abramowitz frets (from their perspective) that the polls might be wrong. I say it all depends on whether God wants to judge America much more, or less.
• Though I've never been nor plan to be drunk, I sympathize with a commenter who told me over at FreeRepublic that he expected to, er, impaired on the 5th; the question is whether it would be from whisky or champagne.
• Beldar cites a commenter who catches a Politico "oops."
• He also further discusses the Obama campaign's embrace of campaign contribution fraud.
• Don't forget, all of Obama's vaunted money-advantage is because he is a lying promise-breaker.

Updates:

• Say, you know who's been missing? Michelle Obama, the adult woman who somehow never had reason to be really proud of America until it gave her unqualified, unaccomplished husband a shot at the White House — which, arguably, is a mark against being proud of America; but I digress. (Don't forget Michelle Malkin's devastating response.) Well, she's back. In a way. In that she's being criticized for a 2004 letter opposing the banning even of the most barbarous, monstrous mode of infanticide. Say it again: pro-abort extremist.
• Relatedly: Gianna Jessen, the walking miracle who had been unsuccessfully targeted for death by Obama's most cherished medical procedure, returns fire in response to his slander of her.
• Reminder: how can I say abortion is Obama's most cherished medical procedure? Because, of all the things he could do as President, Obama says that at the very top of the list is reversing all limits and bloodying all our hands by funding it.
• Back to Michelle Malkin; she gives five of her "favorite" low-points in Obamamedia —so far, I'd add.
• More news you won't see in the MSM: welcome independent, life-affirming thinking from leading black pastor Clenard Childress, who confesses that he cannot support Barack Obama. Speaking of Obama's fervent devotion to abortion advocacy groups, Childress says that "this unholy bond has done more to decimate and deplete our community than slavery and Jim Crow laws ever could have accomplished. This allegiance has destroyed millions of our children; children created but denied access to the American dream, children aborted." Amen, pastor. Preach it. God grant that there be listening ears.
• What th-- did a pig just fly past my window? CNN's Campbell Brown (?!!) urges anyone watching Obama's infomercial to remember that he bought it with money made from a broken promise. Can something be shifting?
• Say... where's Biden? Hidin'! Now, whyever would the Obama campaign hide Senator Joe Biden? Because they know what some (well, one) of my readers do not know: Biden is a disaster.
• Now here's an absolute first: I'm getting traffic from CNN! Click on the Campbell Brown link, above, and then Blogs on that page, and you'll see why. Wild times.
• More News You Won't Hear: Jewish "pro-choice" Democrat woman for McCain. Do not miss this, it is very well-written and well-reasoned. Here are a few pulls: "I now know that defeating global terrorism is the single most important issue of our time. ...As I said to the PBS interviewer but what was edited out, 'my daughters won't have reproductive or many other rights if they are dead or burka'ed.'" "...Obama's pastor scares me a whole lot more than anything Sarah Palin has ever said or done" (see fuller quotation under the Wright video post below). "So this Jewish pro-choice Democrat is going to vote for McCain/Palin because they know who are our friends and who are our enemies. And they are prepared to do what is needed to each."

Obama, here and there, then and now

Obama, candid, on Jeremiah Wright, pastor of twenty years, spiritual mentor, inspiration for book title Audacity of Hope:

Some of Wright's preaching:

Obama, after a little bit of that came to the light:

Credible?

Reminiscent of Obama's various versions of his long alliance with American terrorist William Ayers?

UPDATE: great statement from This Jew for McCain:

...I will tell you what I cannot forgive either of the Obamas: raising their children in their church of hatred. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons run chills down my spine. His anti-American venom is shocking. Have you seen the YouTube video of him saying "God Damn the US," and saying "the chickens have come home to roost" in the form of 9/11 because the US never apologized for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How can anyone equate the bombs that ended World War II, with bombings that have apparently started World War III?

Obama cannot deny calling Wright his moral compass, sounding board, close confidant, and putting him on his spiritual advisory council, calling upon Wright to perform his marriage ceremony, asking Wright to baptize his children, praying with Obama when he launched his White House bid, and attending Wright's church -- one might say religiously -- for nearly twenty years. As I said on air, Obama's pastor scares me a whole lot more than anything Sarah Palin has ever said or done.

How can anyone talk about being a unifying force, and call for hope to bring us together, when he has marinated himself and his family in a pit of venom? Obama recently claimed he had no knowledge of Wright's anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, and minimized his relationship with Wright. That's just insulting revisionism. Obama's private actions fail to align with his public assertions.

Caution: www.bookschristian.com

I needed to order books for use in my church's Men's Fellowship. When I need books, I always utilize price-comparison engines (like this one). This time, a site called BooksChristian.Com had a really good price.

Since I'd never heard of them, I did some searching. I found that they were new, and had ads and mentions all over. So I decided to try them out. As my order was over $100, I was eligible for free shipping. Since I wanted to be sure to get it by this coming Saturday, I paid extra for "expedited" shipping.

That was October 20, about 6:30am.

As of today, the status is still "Processing."

So I wrote their Customer Service, inquiring. I wrote on the 25th, the 27th, and today, the 28th.

No answer. Not even an acknowledgment of the inquiry.

I'll update this when anything moves, but for now — I know a lot (all?) of you are book-lovers. You only get one chance at a first impression, and theirs on me is not good.

UPDATE: at 3:30pm PT today I heard back from them. They perfectly nicely apologized, had found the order, saw that it had been sitting in the warehouse, for shipment, for several days. The representative notified the shipping manager that the order needs to ship soon, and refunded my shipping.

I'll let you know when it arrives.

Don't miss these: 10/28/08

Here are some highlights for the day; the emphases are mine:

• Oops, there he goes again. Looks like Joe Biden got some questions he didn't like again — and once again, banned the station. Sadder aftermath: rather than commending their reporters, the station reportedly chewed them out. Now, these clips don't show enough to form a judgment. But the impression is the same as in the incident with Barbara West. Biden didn't receive the softball treatment he expects from the MSM wing of the Obama campaign.
• (BTW, on O'Reilly last night, West said she asked similarly tough questions of McCain, who chuckled and simply responded; no reports of campaign outrage and banning afterwards.)
  
• Similarly, regarding Obama's 2001 statements favoring wealth-redistribution, the Obama campaign has furiously lashed back, blaming — who? Blaming Obama for his statements and philosophy? Well, of course not. Blaming whoever released the tape? No. No, the would-be leaders of the free world blame... Fox News. See THIS and THIS. Of course, liberals see Fox News as terribly biased, because Fox (unlike the others) occasionally provides perspective on stories. So from that perspective, anything to the right of the far-left edge is right-wing extremism.
• Say, you know what? That's yet another thing Obama has in common with his old ally, Bill Ayers. Hunh!
  
• If I knew an open-minded Obama supporter (which isn't the same as an Obama supporter who says he's open-minded), among the dozen questions I'd like to ask is, "If the campaign reacts this way to inconvenient questions before election, how do you think the Obama administration would deal with dissent and public accountability?"
  
• Tangentially, I'm minded of what Dennis Miller has said: "I only think the race issue is out there because Barack Obama brought it up. All I see is an inexperienced guy that constantly reminds me it’s about race. For me it has nothing to do with the color of Barack Obama’s skin and everything to do with the thinness of it."
• Note William Bennett's distinction (on his radio show today) between what we have and the socialistic engineering that Obama advocates. Obama wants to rob Peter to pay Paul in the name of "fairness" (i.e. spreading misery). The ideal is that Peter takes from Paul to provide services common to both Peter and Paul.
  
• Robert Alt, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, teases out some of the alarming, radical implications of Obama's 2001 revelation.
• Leave it to a girl to say it straight. The problem with recent GOPish turncoats isn't that they're too moderate. It's that they're wimps.
  
• Palin-hater? I'll pray for you, but I can't help you. Open-minded? In addition to about a dozen similar links I've already provided, here's more first-hand affirmation of what most of us have already seen: Sarah Palin's a Brainiac, by former Ms. Magazine editor Elaine Lafferty. She observes that Palin has "a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a 'quick study'; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her 'confidence' is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is."
• Here's another thoughtful piece by a woman who observes that Palin is not given the respect she deserves and has earned. To pull one quotation: McCain "chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician."
• Ready for a real surprise? Even some of Hollywood is repelled by the Palin-bashing, and repulsed by MSNBC. A sub-surprise? That news was reported by al-Reuters. And one more...
  
• Surprise! The LA Times wing of the Obama campaign is reportedly sitting on a tape that might be damaging to their candidate.
• From the political to the Biblical: archeology is once again sticking a trowel in the heart of liberal, toss-the-Bible-aside reconstructions. This time the findings concern the Solomonic era, as well as Biblical role of the Edomites. (Thanks to Wyatt Roberts for giving me a heads-up on this.)
  

UPDATES:

• Cool. Al Mohler today takes note of the Schuller musical-pulpit event that I discussed Sunday. He gives a good deal more detail, but what he says is along the exact same lines.
• What have we come to when Chuck Norris shows more moral judgment and good sense than supposedly intelligent, informed, professed Christians, when it comes to the question of voting for pro-abort extremist Barack Obama?
• Less surprisingly, our indispensible and beloved sister La Shawn Barber tags off and weighs in with a crunch!
• Creampuff Christianoids may yet succeed in electing the most pro-infanticide candidate ever.

Well... I laughed

Seven minutes...

...with about five minutes of pretty good chuckles. Which isn't too bad!

Phillips' Theory of Ecclesiastical Gravity{tm}

A beloved friend was telling me about his town. He registered bemusement at the phenomenon of a passel of megachurches, interspersed among smatterings of little tiny churches. Why were the big churches so big? Why were the little churches so little? Why would people drive an hour and a half to get to one of the big churches, instead of just going to a closer, smaller one?

So I shared the eponymous answer: Phillips' Theory of Ecclesiastical Gravity{tm}

That theory states that Large church bodies attract smaller bodies.


You can see it everywhere. I saw it when I lived on Biola campus, when I attended Talbot Theological Seminary. There were little churches around; but basically everyone either bused off to the nearby Evangelical Free church pastored by Chuck Swindoll, or far off to John MacArthur's Grace Community Church. There were a couple of other larger churches, then many small ones.

Why? Oh, lots of reasons. People like to be part of something that seems to be alive, succeeding, happily "going somewhere" — not something that seems to be stagnant, ingrown, stale, defending a small patch of ground to the (imminent) death. They like churches to be spiritual supermarkets, with everything already stacked neatly on the shelves and available at bargain prices. They don't like to have to request things, then wait (sometimes years) for them.

And they sure don't like to have to work for them, themselves.

I generalize, of course. But this is the consumer mentality that David Wells has discussed and Fisked so well and thoroughly.

Good thing, or bad? Bad, mostly, I'd say. We should go to church for Jesus. Go because He orders us to do so (so it's rebellion to refuse), go to learn of Him (cf. Colossians 3:16), and go to use the gifts He gives, in His service (1 Corinthians 12:7, etc.).

So... go hear a Big Name — where I'm redundant to a factor of 500, or 5000? Or go hear a little name with a big God and a live Bible, where there's some actual need for my gift?

You can say this is gross oversimplification, and I won't entirely disagree. Church selection is, these days, a complex decision. Especially if you're part of a family. Not like in the apostles' day, where your choice would be to go to First Baptist of Colosse, or... not to go at all.

But I will say this categorically: I think many people at enormous churches shouldn't be. I think many who pastor enormous churches shouldn't. I think many enormous churches shouldn't be.

One Dan's opinion. Your milage may vary.

Fasten your seatbelts

I've got a lot lined up for this week. Wish I could tinker with my template, but (A) no time, and (B) not so much a template-genius.

So, you keep checking back through the day. (I'll keep this post at the top for awhile, so check for new posts underneath it.)

Now, back to the laboratory.

Don't miss these 10/27/08

Lots to see!

Reaching back through the weekend to today, here are some notables:

• A pastor receives criminal charges for spanking his son. Germany? Sweden? Of course not. Wisconsin. More here.
• Palin-haters won't think about a word of it for longer than a second, but Fred Barnes makes yet another series of good points in defense of Governor Palin. In an odd way, it took my mind back to the hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, when the Democrats attempted their "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas" (to quote Justice Thomas). My life-situation was such that I was able to watch almost all the hearings. What struck me at the time: all of Anita Hill's defenders knew only her; Thomas' defenders knew both of them. Now we see an attempted national high-tech lynching of an uppity woman who (unlike Senator Obama) has shown real excellence in achievement, but challenges liberal feminist orthodoxy, and East Coast elitism.
• On that subject, Gerard Baker of the London Times observed that Governor Palin "has been the victim of one of the nastiest, most sustained and comprehensive slime-jobs ever performed by a hyper-partisan national and global media." He further notes that Palin "has achieved more of substance [in Alaska] than Barack Obama has in Washington." This is, beyond dispute, true. Yet even here and in my email inbox, folks who have no excuse for not knowing better have parroted the media's meme about Governor Palin. Sad.
  
• To anyone still feigning blinking-eyed astonishment at our observations of leftward MSM bias, did you know that "the Obama website had intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks and thereby enabled multiple contributions from donors with fake names"? No? Imagine that. Of course, had it been the McCain site, it would have dominated the news all weekend. The indispensable Mark Steyn discuss it here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
• L, I B. In a similar vein, it's amazing that ABC News allowed Michael Malone to admit that he's ashamed to admit he's a journalist. Why? Because he admits the obvious, which some of our drive-bys bogglingly still try to deny: his peers are in the tank for Obama. Among his good observations and questions are these: "Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?" Why, indeed. But still, I think he's too easy on them, and his answer only goes so far. Here's one more money-quote: "If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. ...[I]t is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so. "
  
• Even Dan Rather admits media bias. Imagine that.
  
• Over at Hugh Hewitt's page, Beldar tries to appeal to the conscience of good Democrats on this issue. I (A) wish him luck, and (B) predict he'll be hearing a lot of crickets. (Actually, more mockings than crickets; check the liberal trolls in the meta, if you don't mind despairing for America.)
• As to the above, I say that anyone who is okay with Obama's pro-infanticide extremism hasn't much of a conscience to which appeal may be made.
• Steven M. Warshawsky lays out what he thinks are Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory. Hope to God he's right.
• Your tax dollars at work. PBS has had a poll up about whether Governor Palin, who is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, is fit to be Vice President. My question: where is their Biden poll?
• On the subject of Sarah Palin, don't you hate how inaccessible she is to the media? I think it's really... oh, wait. Did I say "Sarah Palin"? I should have said "Barack Obama." Certainly not Palin. My bad.
• But truly on the subject of Palin, behold more liberal love and peacefulness:

Keep checking back for updates!

UPDATES:

Obama 2001: Supreme Court (or someone!) should impose redistribution of wealth

I'm telling you, because the MSM isn't. And, unless forced to, I think they won't. Because it wouldn't help their candidate.

But back before he was trying to disguise or hide his beliefs so that he could gain the White House, Obama said it outright.

The least qualified, the most radically-leftist, the least-vetted.

Read a fairly thorough unpacking HERE. I may update as I find more.

UPDATE:
Attorney Beldar gets into this very thoroughly, may not hear Obama the same as I, is no less alarmed by what he hears.

MSM Meme O' the Week

In their campaign to get Obama elected, the current phase of Operation Inevitability{tm} is Sellouts for the 'Bama.

So we're being deluged with sad stories of GOP voters/pols bailing on McCain to throw their support behind the most unvetted, unqualified, radically leftist, pro-infanticide candidate EVER.

Needless to say, their "reasons" are silly, unconvincing (except to Bamabots), and more revelatory of personal issues than anything else. "Reasons" aren't the point. Crushing the opposition is the point.

Because if "reasons" were the point, we'd be seeing at least an equal amount of above-the-fold MSM articles about the many Dems and others you'd assume to be in the O column who are, in fact, voting for McCain.

Fact:

• Google "Democrats for McCain," and you get 356,000 hits.
• Google "Republicans for Obama" and you get 183,000 hits.

Interesting, eh? Not to the MSM.

It took me less than a minute to discover that. But it doesn't interest the MSM, so it isn't there.
Dems for McCain write columns, they show up at rallys... but somehow, they're "invisible" to the MSM.

Because you can't see what you don't want to see; and you can't find what you don't look for.

The relentless and silly hammering of Palin continues, of course, [A] in the hopes of making people forget that she is far more qualified than Obama, and [B] because she is being devastatingly effective. The latest is imagining a big fight between her and McCain. I don't think it's working very well.

Gianna Jessen: “If Barack Obama Had His Way I Would Not Be Here: The Testimony of a Survivor of Saline Abortion”

Obama's "Let the baby die" policy would have killed Gianna Jessen. Blessedly for her, her mother didn't attempt to abort her in Barack Obama's Illinois, and she survived. Here, she has a word for Senator Obama:

(Lest a drive-by try to deflect the conversation by echoing Obama's lying evasions, they have already been dealt with.)

Gianna is going to be interviewed today, 12-1pm PST. From their notice:

Listen to this live interview on "Iron Sharpens Iron"
MONDAY, OCT. 27th, 3-4pm EDT
in New York & Connecticut on WNYG-1440AM Radio
or WORLDWIDE at www.sharpens.blogspot.com
or www.wnygspiritofny.com. CALL IN with your own questions at:
1-631-321-WNYG (9694)

Interesting: Robert Schuller ousts his son from the pulpit

Hm. The guy who preaches in a big glass house is throwing rocks.

Background: as I shared over at Pyro, I spent my formative teenish years in a cult called Science of Mind, or Religious Science. I would sometimes listen to Robert Schuller, and kind of like him. He was mostly in line with us, except he said the name "Jesus" more than we would.

After my conversion, I thought I'd watch him again, and expected to get more out of him. Instead, he repulsed me. Christ's Lordship was nowhere to be found, the full Gospel message was absent; he was humoring the lost to Hell. More than ever, he sounded almost identical to the cult from which the Lord had just saved me.

Schuller has said many terrible things, judged from the perspective of the Gospel. His abominable book Self-Esteem: the New Reformation carries many of them. Unlike Christ, Schuller puts man at the center of the universe, with God there to serve, affirm, and accommodate. The Biblical teachings of God's holiness and judgment, of Christ's Lordship, of sin, redemption, and salvation through penal, subtitutionary atonement, have been conspicuously absent or denied. Repentance from sin, as Biblically defined and depicted, is not a Schuller theme.

Now I read that the elder Schuller has removed his son from the pulpit, citing different visions and directions that could damage the ministry. Well, that piqued my curiosity. What difference? I haven't been following the doings at Crystal Cathedral at all. Did the younger Schuller preach even less Biblicaloid notions than Dad could stand? Or, perhaps... the other direction?

I searched mostly in vain. But if the Wikipedia article on Robert A. Schuller is accurate, it may give us a clue. Check this:

...where his father's preaching tends to be heavier on psychological reference and lighter on scriptural reference, Robert A. Schuller's messages rely considerably on scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics, making the role of "positivism" secondary. This emphasis on scripture as a primary teaching source makes his preaching style considerably different from his father's.

Critics of his father will find Robert A. Schuller's teaching and style more in line with mainstream evangelical thought. Some argue that that he does not preach adequately on the topic of sin and man's fallen nature, while others counter-argue that he does so adequately without overemphasizing them (a common critique from evangelicals and fundamentalists).

It is also argued that, as with many televangelists, including his father, Schuller's message is not throughout truly Christian but tends to be rather secular. Others counterargue that the heavy use of scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics used by Schuller negate this argument.

So, maybe... too much Gospel?

Golly. Think what would happen if anyone tried to nail up 95 Theses there!

Or even just the first one:

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent",
He called for the entire life of believers to be one of
repentance.

Biden gets tough questions, doesn't like it much

For once, see a Democrat getting the sort of confrontive questions every conservative gets... and he doesn't like it much.

The difference is, reporter Barbara West lets him answer, and lets his answers stand.

Note this whopper: "Barack Obama is more ready than John McCain." Wow. I guess it's 'way easier than it looks.

Hope the West's tax papers are in order, and her magazine subscriptions all paid-up.

PS — in case YouTube pulls that, the station has the full interview at their page.

Don't miss these: 10/24/08 — cheer and questions

Here's some worth noting as we finish our week. I'll see if I can find anything cheerful, and I want to ask some questions.

• Another article proving what a horrible drag Sarah Palin is on the ticket. (So I don't lose anybody again, that's a satirical remark.) Particularly note the first paragraph. It's cheering.
  
• BTW, given all the disastrous gaffes and revelations flowing from his lips every time he does that thing he does with his mouth — I've been missing all the polls on Joe Biden. You know: what people think of him, whether they trust him, whether they think he's ready to be president, whether they think he's smart, whether he makes them more or less likely to vote for the most unaccomplished and unqualified person ever to run for the Presidency on a major party ticket. Given Biden's proven record as a plagiarist, dead-wrong on foreign policy, and all; and given the insistence (even among our drive-bys) in an objective MSM, surely there are as many polls on him as on Palin. So... can someone give me a link? On which subject....
• I'm no great fan of Patrick Buchanan, but he is dead-on right about chokingly-thick MSM bias in coverage of Biden vs. Palin.
• I'm also not Charles Krauthammer's biggest fan. But today he makes a devastating case for McCain over Obama. Every sentence is like one of George Foreman's flying-refrigerator punches. I'll assert this: if you read that through, if you understand what he's talking about, and if you still even seriously consider Obama — it won't be because of the issues. Unless you're hopelessly on the wrong side of them, and never would have genuinely considered McCain, anyway, no matter what you tell people. If clarity makes you cheery, this will do it.
• You might be a McCain/Palin Supporter if.... might give a rueful chuckle or two.
• There are several ways of characterizing Peter Robinson's expression of Thomas Sowell's troubling reflections of the impact (brace yourself) President Obama would likely have. One would be: the end of America, as conceived at its founding. Mine would be: the triumph of a fundamentally anti-Christian vision. The Founders constructed our government on the Biblical recognition of man's sinfulness; hence the checks and balances. Obama's vision fundamentally ignores that truth. The long-range consequences, I say in all seriousness, could be disastrous beyond our ability even to imagine. OK, sorry; that's not cheery.
• Neither cheery nor a question: Michelle Malkin is keeping up on the possibility that the attack-story I featured yesterday is a fake. My point stands either way. It will be big, big news only if it's fake.
  
• A question: tell me the difference between these two MSM headlines: McCain seeks to portray Obama as an extreme liberal; and Obama rebuts McCain on tax plan.
• Still on the MSM, and a question: why is it big news that McCain's brother called 911 about traffic, but it's never been big news that Obama's half-brother lives in a hut on less than a dollar a month?
• Obama mocks McCain's war injuries again. Well, wouldn't that be the way it would be reported if the MSM were as virulently in the tank against him as they are for him

UPDATES:

• The young lady who told of being attacked by an Obama supporter admits it was a hoax. Sad, sick, stupid, and wrong. Malkin was right. (Now, I'm thinking, it will be big news.)
• An Obama presidency will assure the perpetration of more abortions. Compare this and this, and figure it out.
• Very funny and creative video. Be warned: one naughty word, one naughty suggestion, and some hip-wiggling.