Pastor Dan’s (our oldest son, far left) sermons can now be heard online… either go to his church’s website (bottom right of my home page) and find the podcast… or easier yet just double click the following and/or cut and paste:
http://www.fbcogt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=264:article-sermon-podcasts&catid=94:sermon-podcasts&Itemid=121
A reminder that it really happened from Blogger Bud, and to never forget… the ethnic cleansing of WWII:
CUT AND PASTE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH BELOW… OR DOUBLE CLICK
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1243eb5faef4a8c7&mt=application%2Fvnd.ms-powerpoint&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3Df49e128642%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1243eb5faef4a8c7%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHBy-hbkKQZ6ukPEjp90Ssu1ZoQoUDUHZg
David (Army) and Scott (Marine)
David’s National Article:
From National Review Weekend comes a most timely and one of which I whole heartedly agree… article from our son David On the War in Afghanistan:
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Afghanistan: Eight Long Years Later [David Bellavia]
As we look back on the eight years in which we have fought the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is embroiled in a decision that will define its foreign policy for years to come. Although he campaigned as the anti-Bush candidate in 2008, one would be hard pressed to see any substantial differences between the two administrations with regard to how they are handling the war.
Fresh off the success in Iraq, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have unmatched expertise in waging a counterinsurgency. But it is only fair to point out that in order to wage a counterinsurgency, you have to acknowledge the particular failings that brought about the insurgency you have to counter. There have been many mistakes in Afghanistan, as there were in pre-surge Iraq.
More important than whether or not Obama will send in the 40,000 troops the generals are asking for is what constraints the troops on the ground will be asked to follow. Dropping leaflets on a population is futile when the population is illiterate. Explaining democracy to a people that have no conceptual understanding of liberty is equally difficult. Many Americans today view counterinsurgency operations chiefly as “hearts and minds” operations involving the handing out of teddy bears and candy bars. But the first step in isolating the enemy from the people is protecting the population from those who wish to destroy it. If you keep people safe, you gain their trust. McChrystal is not a man who will shy away from a fight. The surge in Iraq killed hundreds of insurgents using special operatives and regular infantry.
But the current rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan are simply far too constrictive to eliminate large pockets of threat. The people of Afghanistan don’t trust their government and their police forces. We are years away from relying on them as we have with their Iraqi counterparts. The ROE are a direct reflection of that: We are forced to be gentle because of the barbaric manner in which the Afghanis treat their own people. This may make us feel good, but we choose this tactic at the risk of our young men and women.
The chief problem with our Afghanistan strategy is the craven politicians who want to micromanage the war. Moveon.org opposed the escalation of force in Afghanistan eight years ago. Since 2004, however, the Left has turned about-face, bellowing that we “took our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan by fighting the war in Iraq.
The reality is that we have lost three times the number of Americans in the streets of Chicago in two years (945) than we lost from hostile fire in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 (297). Not coincidentally, this is the same period when global jihadists flocked to Iraq to fight our troops. Once the success of the surge took hold, these terrorists had to find a new breeding ground — and the pendulum swung back to the mountains of Afghanistan.
Today there is still the naïve mindset that killing Osama bin Laden will stop the war, or at least check the box of why we went to war in the first place. This is nonsense, like believing that killing the big-headed TV Burger King will immediately stop the sales of Whoppers with cheese. If we judge the failure in Afghanistan as the inability to locate Bin Laden, we are far off course as to why we fight in that region. Terrorists by nature are cowards: They hide. And in the rugged terrain of the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan it is not improbable that we will never find Bin Laden. It took over a year to find Steve Fossett at 9,500 feet in the mountains of California, and he was flying a 32-foot-long aircraft. Picture the 22,000-foot peaks of the mountains of Afghanistan, and you can understand that these things are not easy.
We cannot rely on senators and congressmen to win our wars. If Barbara Boxer doesn’t even realize that military protocol requires soldiers to respond with “sir” or “ma’am,” her “solution” to the problems in Afghanistan doesn’t have much credibility.
Until we as a nation understand what we are doing fighting the war on terror, we have no chance to win it. The decision as to what to do next in Afghanistan is taking entirely too long, coming from a president who literally talked about the “good war” for over two years. If we are not resolute in our methods in fighting this counterinsurgency we might as well just bring everyone home. And then, after the next 9/11 happens, we will hold benefits for the victims, pray for the families of the fallen, and carry the hope that our good nature as a people will cause other enemies of America to appreciate the way we live and leave us alone.
The reality is that wherever you find an American military presence, you will find global jihadists. If we are not serious about sending 40,000 troops and allowing them to do what they are trained to do, bring our boys home.
— David Bellavia is co-founder of Vets for Freedom and author of House to House: A Soldier’s Memoir.
10/08 05:00 AM
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday…
As I pondered the gifting of our president with the Nobel Peace Prize… all I could ask is why? What has he done to deserve this award? In fact, what could he have accomplished in such a short time to deserve this award? When one reviews the last three recipients the only common link was that they opposed anything Bush (GW). But what does that have to do with peace? Moreover, when one contemplates that this President was nominated last February, less than a month after his inauguration, one can only conclude that this coveted award, once won by the likes of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, has been diminished to a leftist political pawn.
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS
Pastor Dan (oldest son) and I had a discussion and agreed that President Carter did deserve the prize, but not for the fiasco in Korea, which was directly responsible for Korea manufacturing a bomb and as the Nobel Committee admitted was a ‘kick in the leg to Bush’, but for the Camp David Accord with Israeli President Menachem Began and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat (Peace Prize was deservedly given to the latter two). These talks resulted in a more peaceful Egypt and hope for the Middle East. Certainly Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul deserved it for the fall of the Iron Curtain and freedom for millions of captive souls. Moreover, Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush deserved it for their work on the world’s stage; Clinton for his work in Kosovo and Ireland, GW Bush for his work in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this president has been in office for merely 8 months, and less than a month when he was nominated, what could he have possible done to effect world peace in that short time? If anything he has continued Bush’s policies, including rendition, GITMO, and both wars. So if that wins him a Peace Prize, why shouldn’t it have won Bush, or for that matter, Clinton, the same?
As I recall Vice President Gore was awarded this same award for making a movie on global warming, which had, by conservative count, nine major mistakes and or purposeful exaggerations in it. What may be most telling in this ignominy called the Nobel Peace Prize is that perhaps the terrorist of the century, Yassar Arofat, was also honored in 1994 with this award.
An ‘honor’ bestowed on a president who has not had enough time to influence the peace of the world, proves that this is no longer an achievement award. If our president wants to show the world how he feels about the military and their sacrifice, he will accept the award in their honor and absence. Surely nobody can argue they do not deserve it.
Reprinted from Friday’s “The Morning Bell” (Heritage Foundation) FRIDAY, OCT 9, 2009:… The politicization of this award saddens us when dissident leaders in China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and other dictatorships are passed over despite substantial achievements and not just hope for things to come.
More recently, Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002, and Former Vice President Al Gore won the award in 2007 for his environmental activism. It is clear to everyone that in recent years, the Nobel Prize has taken on a form of a political football that Europeans are able to lob into U.S. domestic politics when they desire to…
President Obama has built high expectations for himself since he began his campaign in 2007. He was going to turn around Afghanistan, the “good war.” He was going to restore America’s leadership role internationally, and deliver global consensus on issues as weighty as a nuclear arms or universal emissions standards. So far, he has been given little time to show results to match this “promise.” While some fellow nations of the world have embraced him, other former allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and others have condemned his policies. While he has spoken of a nuclear free world, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called this vision “naïve.” While he has delivered speeches looking to bridge the Muslim and western worlds, he has also failed to recognize that Muslim women and men are fighting against a Taliban intent on oppression, poverty and terrorism.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not the Nobel Intentions Prize. Past winners have risked life, freedom and their families to deliver world change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa who led the Solidarity movement to free Poland from brutal Russian oppression. Or Mother Theresa who was given the award after decades saving children from famine, or Begin and Al-Sadat in 1978 who made a giant leap forward in Middle East security, bridging the gap between Israel and Egypt.
The Nobel Prize committee should have given President Obama the opportunity to meet these weighty expectations rather than diminish past achievements with a public relations award. However, the Nobel organization is a private one. And they have every right to give this award to whomever they choose. The real measure of success for President Obama will be how well he serves the American people, safeguards our sovereignty and keeps the nation secure, free and prosperous.
Group Wants Obama Pick’s Resignation … Comment: yet another Obama radical Czar, Kevin Jennings, is under fire. Jennings is an avowed homosexual (nothing wrong with that), but he has backed activists who were associated from NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) and advised and written for a pro-homosexual agenda to be taught in grade schools. NAMBLA’s goal is to change the law to allow sexual relationships between adult males and minor boys. This action is the very definitions of statutory rape and pedophilia. The problem I see with this man is not necessarily his sexual preference, unless it includes minors, but his appointment. He is a homosexual activist and he has been appointed to head the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Please read the article below and decide for yourself. It is my opinion that if he is involved in any way with the encouragement or legalizing of statutory rape or pedophilia… i.e. NAMBLA, he should not be involved with children, let alone in charge of them.
Below was written by Pete Chagnon and Jody Brown – OneNewsNow – 10/8/2009
A grassroots organization that is dedicated to preserving America’s Judeo-Christian history and values is calling for the resignation of one of President Obama’s appointees.
Kevin Jennings is currently the head of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, having been selected for that post by Barack Obama in May and taking office in early July. He is also the founder of the controversial and pro-homosexual Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), as well as author of several books on homosexual rights and education.
Bishop E.W. Jackson, president and founder of Staying True to America’s National Destiny (STAND), has written a letter to President Obama calling for Jennings’ resignation. Jackson says that Jennings, as head of GLSEN, was involved in a cover-up.
The incident, as Jackson explains, involved a 15-year-old boy named “Brewster” who allegedly met an older adult male at a bus stop, went home with the man, and had sexual relations with him. Brewster later told Jennings about the incident. Jackson explains what happened next.
“Kevin Jennings — rather than questioning the boy about who this man was, calling the authorities, reporting it to the school officials — his response was, ‘I hope you remembered to use a condom,’” says Jackson. (Listen to audio of Jennings)
“And…according to a book that he later wrote, [Jennings apparently] encouraged the kid in the relationship and said that every time he saw him after that he was smiling, [that] he had a big smile on his face,” Jackson continues. “And apparently the relationship went on for quite some time with this man.”
That 1994 book, edited by Jennings, is titled One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories.
Bishop Jackson notes that Jennings, as the head of GLSEN, also promoted radical sexual education in schools for children as young as kindergarten.
Concerned citizens, he says, need to contact their representatives and join the call for Jennings’ resignation.
Why did the Obama administration forge ahead with Jennings’ appointment
Jackson is not alone in his request. U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) has called for the immediate firing of Jennings. Earlier this week, King released a statement in which he said that Jennings “lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards” to serve in a presidential administration.
“Despite serving as the ‘safe schools’ czar, Jennings has demonstrated a willingness to look the other way on sexual abuse,” says King. “His life’s work has been the promotion of homosexuality, even in elementary schools, and he has demonstrated no qualifications to make students safer in our schools.”
King also argues Jennings is committed to the safety of only a “narrow portion” of the nation’s students — while at the same time “expressing disdain for religion and traditional values.”
An eye opener from Vicky and Keith: Fertility Rate necessary to maintain a society: CUT AND PASTE OR DOUBLE CLICK
http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12424b6df01e2338
An Expansion of the Hate Crimes Bill… I guess I have a tough time with hate crime… period. All crime, especially that inflicting physical pain and death, at least to some extent is a ‘hate crime’. It is not as if one should condone crime against minorities, homosexuals, females, or disabled, but we should never condone crime against any person or group of people… period. Why is a crime against a black man, a gay man, or a lady any different than a hate crime against a white man? The effect is the same, as is the motivation. What is more, how can one discern what is in the heart of another? What makes one murder a hate crime, and another not a hate crime? I would ask that you would ponder: Doesn’t all physical crime against an individual connote hate?
Reprinted from the American Family Association: “Hate crimes bill – law by the weekend?” Allie Martin is the author of this article reprinted from- OneNewsNow, and Associated Press – 10/8/2009 3:10:00 PM
A spokesman with the American Family Association says the hate crimes bill passed Thursday afternoon by the House could have a chilling effect on free speech and religious freedoms in the nation. If the bill passes the Senate, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or disability.
Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming. (The vote on HR 2647 was 281-146; see roll call vote)
“For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought,” Fischer laments. “Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions — and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.
“It’s also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality.”
Fischer says he would not be surprised if the bill passes through the Senate by the weekend. “I suspect the president is putting pressure on some Democrats in Congress to get this done so he can sign it by Saturday night,” says the AFA spokesman. “[That very evening] he’s going to give the keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. That’s the major homosexual advocacy group in the nation. I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner.”
He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. “Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal,” Fischer admits. “It’s doable, but again [there's] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 — so we’ll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now.”
The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion Pentagon policy measure that now heads to the Senate.
Here is an article from the AP on the subject:
House moves to extend hate crimes to cover homosexuals
WASHINGTON DC – Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a federal hate crime in legislation the House voted on Thursday. The bill would significantly expand the hate crimes law enacted in the days after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in 1968.
Should the Senate also approve the bill, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against people based on their sexual orientation or “gender identity.” President Obama is a strong supporter of the hate crimes legislation.
Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. “It’s a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation.
Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, voted against the must-pass defense bill because of the addition of what they referred to as “thought crimes” legislation.
“The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable,” said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a member of the Republican leadership.
GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association — critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against homosexuals.
Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council’s legislative arm, said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. “The religious protections are pretty flimsy,” he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their “homosexual agenda” this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.
Gun Rights Under Attack:
It does not take a genius to figure out any change in America involving anti-conservatives, will include Second Amendment (gun rights). I have read many half truths by many organizations, this one checks out… from Newsmax.com October 7, 2009
Dear Concerned American,
Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama’s gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he’s supported over the years.
It’s only the first step…but it’s a HUGE step.
H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner — for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that’s only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place!
And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find youself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect. And it gets worse too.
The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment.
You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would: Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.
Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.
It gets worse though.
Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are “fit” to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
I’m outraged by this, and I know you are too. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere.
In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes.
But H.R. 45, Obama’s National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America.
The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.
Taken right out of Sarah Brady’s Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases. In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, H.R. 45 also requires you to:
Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm. Release your medical records — including confidential mental health records — to the government to get your “fitness” to own a firearm approved. Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.
Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases. Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry. The list goes on and on. It’s enough to turn your stomach.
I know I don’t have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution. “The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” might as well say: “You have no rights.” If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren’t infringing our rights, I don’t know what is!
Even the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a firearm doesn’t hamper Barack Obama’s agenda one bit. In fact, it emboldens gun grabbers to pass legislation taxing ammunition, increasing registration requirements, and drastically limiting when, how and where you can use your firearm… for more on this subject go to their website Newsmax.com.
The truth is, H.R. 45 is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won’t stop until they’ve reached their ultimate goal: A virtual ban on private, individual firearm ownership.
Paul Broun, U.S. Congressman (R-GA), National Association for Gun Rights
The Lighter Side:
From Blogger Bud… this is really funny stuff…
If you never saw this before, you will enjoy.
Baltimore Colt Hall of Fame Tackle Art Donovan with Johnny Carson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Jl_Sa94gCzg
From Blogger Gammy Sammy 8:
Four Catholic men and a Catholic woman were having coffee.
The first Catholic man tells his friends, “My son is a priest.
When he walks into a room, everyone calls him ‘Father’.”
The second Catholic man chirps, “My son is a Bishop.
When he walks into a room people call him ‘Your Grace’.”
The third Catholic gent says, “My son is a Cardinal.
When he enters a room everyone says ‘Your Eminence’.”
The fourth Catholic man chirps, “My son is the Pope.
When he walks into a room people call him ‘Your Holiness’.”
Since the lone Catholic woman was sipping her coffee in silence,
the four men give her a subtle, “Well….?”
She replies, “I have a daughter. She is slim, tall and 38D-24-36.
When she walks into a room, people say, ‘Oh My God’.”
While we are on a religious theme she also sent me this one: No Nativity Scene in Washington DC this year… The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States Capital this Christmas season. This isn’t for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation’s Capitol. There was no problem, however, finding enough jackasses in Washington to fill the stable.
Sunday, October 11, 2009 Buffalo NY (AP) – A seven-year old boy was at the center of a Erie County courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree possible..
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her.
When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him. After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the
Buffalo Bills, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
Subject: Robot bartender
A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool he noticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attention and asked, “Sir, what will you have?”
The man thought a moment then replied, “A martini please..”
The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the man had ever had.
The robot then asked, “Sir, what is your IQ?”
The man answered “oh, about 164.”
The robot then proceeded to discuss the ‘theory of relativity’, ‘inter-steller space travel’, ‘the latest medical break throughs’, etc……..
The man was most impressed. He left the bar but thought he would try a different tact. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clicked and asked what he would have? “A martini please.”
Again it was superb. The robot again asked “what is your IQ, sir?”
This time the man answered, “Oh about 100″. So the robot started discussing NASCAR racing, the latest basketball scores, and what to expect the Dodgers to do this weekend.
The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took a stool. Again a martini, and the question, “What is your IQ?”??
This time the man drawled out “Uh….. bout 50″.
The robot clicked then leaned close and very slowly asked,
“A-r-e? Y-o-u-? P-e-o-p-l-e??? S-t-i-l-l H-a-p-p-y? W-i-t-h O-B-A-M-A?????
