Maple Ridge, BC
Today is Canadian Thanksgiving. I am not a huge fan of turkey meat and so we are having chicken.
Browning explains that in the Hebrew Bible an animal sacrifice was offered in gratitude for favours received. The meat was shared with the donor and the priest. Browning (1997: 367). Browning notes that in Judaism a thanksgiving berakah was offered at meals and that Jesus Christ gave thanks at the Lord's Supper. Browning (1997: 367). W.A. Van Gembren explains that the Biblical teaching on offerings and sacrifices is at the centre of redemptive history. Van Gembren (1996: 788). I realize animal sacrifices took place for atonement in the Hebrew Bible.
I am not stating that Canadian Thanksgiving is a Biblically based holiday, but I am stating that in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament giving thanks to God is an intellectually reasonable and good thing to do. (See comment).
As a Christian I am thankful to be chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1), through grace through faith unto good works (Ephesians 2: 8-10). I am thankful that in line with Roman 8: 28-30, all things work for good to those who love God, to those called according to his purpose. This perspective is also a central point in my MPhil and PhD theses.
There is no greater honour and pleasure than serving the one and true Biblical God.
I am thankful to live in a democratic country, even though as with the Western world in general terms society and governments seem increasingly against God. I am thankful for my blogs and the teaching and learning that takes place. I am thankful for my fellow bloggers, readers, and commenters. I am thankful for our debates to a point, although at times we risk becoming turkeys! I am thankful for my blogs and that I can continue to ask the Lord that I will objectively deal with issues and attempt to tone down confrontational language, as I do not want to be a turkey!
I am thankful for all spiritual and physical blessings.
C.E.B. Cranfield comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation, for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure. As Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40)
I am not thankful for my own sin and the sin of others, sleep apnea, vitreous floaters, the fact that my PhD has still not been reviewed, or for some of the unecessary arguments that take place while blogging on-line and via email. But, I can be thankful that God can and does use evils for the greater good, as an infinite God can use all finite events and actions for the greater good, and this takes place for those in Christ.
From:
history
Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day (Canadian French: Action de grâce), is an annual one-day holiday to give thanks for the things one has at the close of the harvest season. Some people thank God for this bounty.[1] The holiday is celebrated on the second Monday in October...
Thanksgiving is a statutory holiday in all jurisdictions, with the exception of the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Where a company is regulated by the federal government (such as those in the Telecommunications and Banking sectors), it is recognized regardless of status provincially.[2][3][4][5][6]
As a liturgical festival, Thanksgiving corresponds to the English and continental European Harvest festival, with churches decorated with cornucopias, pumpkins, corn, wheat sheaves, and other harvest bounty, English and European harvest hymns sung on the Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend and scriptural selections drawn from biblical stories relating to the Jewish harvest festival of Sukkot...
History of Thanksgiving in Canada
The history of Thanksgiving in Canada goes back to an explorer, Martin Frobisher, who had been trying to find a northern passage to the Orient. In the year 1578, he held a formal ceremony, in what is now the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to give thanks for surviving the long journey. The feast was one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in North America, although celebrating the harvest and giving thanks for a successful bounty of crops had been a long-standing tradition throughout North America by various First Nations and Native American groups. First Nations and Native Americans throughout the Americas, including the Pueblo, Cherokee, Cree and many others organized harvest festivals, ceremonial dances, and other celebrations of thanks for centuries before the arrival of Europeans in North America [7]. Frobisher was later knighted and had an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean in northern Canada named after him — Frobisher Bay...
Starting in 1879 Thanksgiving Day was observed every year but the date was proclaimed annually and changed year to year. The theme of the Thanksgiving holiday also changed year to year to reflect an important event to be thankful for. In the early years it was for an abundant harvest and occasionally for a special anniversary.
References
^ a b The Globe and Mail
^ http://www.gnb.ca/0308/FactSheets/04.pdf
^ "Thanksgiving - is it a Statutory Holiday?". Gov.ns.ca. Retrieved on 2008-10-13.
^ "CHAPTER E-6.2" (PDF). Retrieved on 2008-10-13.
^ "RSNL1990 CHAPTER L-2 - LABOUR STANDARDS ACT". Assembly.nl.ca. Retrieved on 2008-10-13.
^ http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/spila/clli/eslc/stat_hol.pdf
^ The History of Thanksgiving - First Thanksgiving
This is music dedicated to Chucky, Bobby, Jamie, Jason/GGM, and Simon, some my friends that are fans of progressive music.
Xanadu 8-18-2004
Freewill 6-27-1990
Mahavishnu Orchestra: Resolution
Mahavishnu Orchestra: Dawn from Syracuse 1972.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
VAN GEMBEREN, W.A. (1996) ‘Offering and Sacrifices in Bible Times', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Happy Thanksgiving, Russ. This is my second Canadian thanksgiving that I am not celebrating, as I am not there! I'll have to wait until November.
ReplyDeleteI would say that giving thanks is not just "an intellectually reasonable and good thing to do," as you say, but it is required of us (see, for example 1 Thess. 5:18). Indeed, our whole lives are to be a response of gratitude directed towards God for what He has done for us. We ought to focus on living lives of thankfulness. It's kind of just like Valentine's Day, right? Why do I need one day of a year to show my wife I love her? That should be demonstrated in everything I do, every hour of every day of every year.
But, we can use the holiday as a good excuse to eat turkey and have a day off. I'm always down for that. :)
I am not stating that Canadian Thanksgiving is a Biblically based holiday, but I am stating that in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament giving thanks to God is an intellectually reasonable and good thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI would say that giving thanks is not just "an intellectually reasonable and good thing to do," as you say, but it is required of us (see, for example 1 Thess. 5:18).
Cheers, Jake.
I was actually thinking that God commanded us to be thankful as I was writing, but I chose not to approach the article that way.
I did not suggest it was just reasonable and good.
No question we are told to give thanks in Scripture, but that was not the emphasis in my article. My desire was to merely establish that our modern concept of thanksgiving can be loosely connected to the Bible.
The holiday although not essentially Christian is reasonable as there is a God who is the creator and good as this God is responsible for our well-being.
My focus is not primarily for readers that may be non-believers that have searched Canadian Thanksgiving on the web to think they are obligated to thank God (which of course they should), but that they should intellectually consider being thankful to God.
It comes to mind in Scripture when ideas are emphasized and some omitted. Mark 16: 16 is debated on its canonical authenticity but for my point consider that one is told that he/she should believe and be baptized to be saved, but it does not mention that one needs to be regenerated/born again in order to believe.
So you make a good point, but I am going to leave it as is.
Thanks, Jake!
Happy Thankgiving!
Cool, sounds good. :)
ReplyDeleteHappy ThanksGiving, Russ, from over the pond!
ReplyDelete~Deejay
Cheers, Jake.:)
ReplyDeleteThank you, Deejay.:)
ReplyDeleteHappy Thanksgiving...heh? :-)
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that on the 27th of November, the only sacrifice our turkey will be making is to satisfy my hunger! :-)
It's funny how so many families "honor" Thanksgiving in their "religious" observance, but for the 7 months prior to Thanksgiving (when they "celebrated" Easter) and the month following Thanksgiving (until they "celebrate" Christmas) they live like "the world".
It's good, I guess, to have a special time of year to consider our thankfulness; but, of course, as Christians every day should be Thanksgiving--though I'm sure all the turkeys would be less than grateful to their Creator! :-)
BTW--thanks for the videos. You can never have to much Rush to watch! And like I told you before, I'm beginning to get into Mahavishnu Orchestra. King Crimson and Dream Theater (along with Rush) are my top favorite "prog" bands at the moment. Neal Morse is also very good!
Thanks, GGM.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you enjoyed the music and now know about Canadian Thanksgiving.
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteToday, I ate lunch at Wendy's. I saw an elderly woman seated and praying over her food as she tried to control her tremor. I did ask her if there was anything my wife and I could pray over, for her. She declined.
But, what I focused on is that she maintains a generation of people who take God seriously. This, exhibited in her prayer over her food, and by the length of it, she was taking the opportunity to pray for much more than thankfulness to have food.
I hope this woman felt encouraged to know, that I, a young person in contrast to her, noticed that she was giving thanks.
Furthermore, I hope some of the young people around, understood that I acknowledged her posture of giving thanks.
I once had a girl from France tell me, "Church is o.k. for old people in her country. But, not for the young".
I don't believe that she represents every young person in France. But, I think there is a time to give thanks, and this one day a year in your country or mine should be done publicly. Only because our cultures have forgotten.
Btw, did you know, at one time the early citizen's of the U.S. had many different days for offering thanks, across the country. It is by Abraham Lincoln's declaration that we in the United States Celebrate collectively and in unity across our land.
Thanks, Jim for the historical information and the comments.
ReplyDeleteLet us hope and pray that among the young in the West there will be revival for the world and reformation for the Church.
Mohler on the persecution on Christians, Christians in China, and Obama and his extreme pro-choice views
ReplyDeleteI am listening to this show.
It appears Obama and his legislation will likely not cause fewer abortions.
Please leave comments.
The article
Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
Oct 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Here in Canada we have a minority Conservative government, but abortion on demand is not a major poltical issue. However, an inside Conservative party source (works for MP) has told me that the Conservatives have 2-3 bills limiting abortion in the works.
Thank you, Russ, for posting that article, which I had not seen before.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bill Clinton was running for President, I did not want to vote for him because he was very much a liberal, and was for abortion.
I do not have that same feeling about Obama. With Obama, I think there is something far more sinister, and I don't believe it is merely limited to abortion. The problem is, he does not reveal what he truly believes in or stands for, so it is hard to tell what he is hiding.
“The big problem for the GOP isn’t that Obama has a mid-single-digit lead in the national polls. The big problem for the GOP is that rank-and-file voters will decide that this race is over and not bother to go to the polls... If Republican voters fall into the trap being laid by the media that the Presidential race is over then Obama will win by default.” —Rich Galen
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI think Clinton is a very smart man, although I AM NOT a liberal-democrat, and would disagree with much of his policy. I also agree with Donald Trump, Bush II has not been a good President.
Some of the present political problems, IMHO: points:
McCain being in the same Republican Party as Bush.
Bush’s unpopularity in tough economic times.
Bush has from what I have heard and read from more than one source, increased the national debt, more so than Clinton that some state left a surplus.
Bush’s unpopular and in my opinion faulty foreign policy.
McCain in a time of economic crisis and anti-war views comes across as a General whereas Obama comes across as a Professor with solutions.
McCain is the more experienced and probably more knowledgeable of the two, but he will lose it appears, unless the polls have been skewed as some suggest, but I have not seen the evidence for this objection. Sadly, Obama has a better public image than McCain, and yes I realize the media typically has a left-wing bias.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI was just now watching some of the final debate on TV. The media's tactics were so obvious just now. When Obama was speaking to the public, they showed only him looking into the camera. When McCain was speaking to the public, they split the screen, with McCain on one side, and Obama sneering with a look of superiority on the other side. The media definitely has an agenda to make Obama look better than McCain.
Obama is a more confident speaker and has more charisma than McCain, plus he has youth. But I will not vote for him.
Bush has been idealistic, and has by no means been a perfect President. But I have liked a number of the things he has done, despite what the media has said. I have liked him as President far more than I ever liked Clinton as President. Some people have linked Bush and/or his dad with the Illuminati, Cross and Bones, One World Order, etc., but I suspect much of that is Conspiracy Theory (though I have seen some of the Cross and Bones photos).
I also find it interesting that when Reagan was President, people made fun of him, especially towards the end. Now, after he's gone, some people are talking about him like he is the greatest American hero, and talking about his Presidency as if it is something we need to work toward again.
Jeff and readers,
ReplyDeleteMcCain brought up aspects of the linked article.
From article:
For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
Obama noted there was already a law in place that supported infants that survived abortion.
To me it is chilling that one would consider supporting terminating/killing on demand those unborn infants in the first place.
Obama states he is against partial birth abortion, but did not want a law against it to challenge R. vs. W.
Obama has somewhat answered the article, but his overall position of pro-choice strikes me as expedient and coldly political.
Readers, why should a woman have a right to terminate a scientifically verifiable human being in the womb strictly based on demand? Why should a woman's right over her body be above that of an infant to exist outside of the womb strictly based on demand.
Vote for Chuck!
ReplyDeleteNot me, I'm a Canadian.
Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party.
"I am not stating that Canadian Thanksgiving is a Biblically based holiday"
ReplyDeleteI know plenty of Americans and Candadians who consider Thanksgiving the ONLY Biblically based holiday, because the Bible tells us to lay aside days for praise and thanksgiving.
Perhaps indirectly, but it is not a holiday from a direct Biblical example.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
Obama for PM
ReplyDeleteOur election is just over but the blog above 'wants' Obama to be our Prime Minister.
I voted Conservative, and always do.
At this time in Canadian history a truly conservative politician would have virtually no chance of becoming Prime Minster I reason.
What a great post Russ, I am now inspired to maybe write a post about all the things that i am thankful for. Even though Thanksgiving Day is not here yet i think everyday should be a thanksgiving day! Being Thankful is something that I just want to do.
ReplyDeleteGreat Thanksgiving article. I appreciate your Biblical perspectives and your thankfulness. I also enjoyed your short history lesson on Canadian Thanksgiving.
ReplyDelete-Jive Turkey-
Thanks for the excellent comments, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Thanks, Mr. Turkey.
ReplyDeleteIt's odd and ironic that Canadian Thanksgiving officially started in Newfoundland, yet is not celebrated as a stat holiday there. Probably because in Newfoundland (and possibly the other Maritime provinces?) they have 4 other stat holidays:
ReplyDelete2009
16 Mar St Patrick's Day.
20 Apr St George's Day.
22 Jun Discovery Day.
13 Jul Orangemen's Day.
Here's John Stewart's take on the Canadian election
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts Chuck.
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart has Canada down pretty well.;)
Our election is just over but the blog above 'wants' Obama to be our Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Obama should become World Leader and begin a One-World Government. And maybe we should all bow down to him, since he most assuredly has all the answers to the problems of the world.
Hey, I saw one comment online that said the name "Barack Hussein Obama" has 18 letters in it, which calculates out to 3 X 6 or 666! LOL!
From the same site:
"His zip code is 60606."
Another:
"1-800-666-6666: the toll-free Number of the Beast."
Another said:
"i thought it was ronald wilson reagan=666. 6 letters in each name. if anything i think ronald reagan is the antichrist. i believe that they will resurrect him or clone him or something (that explains the life and speech given to the image of the beast with the deadly wound rev 13) and he will arise and shock the world (rev 17). thats why the world was shocked therefore explaining that ronald reagan is the beast that was (was president) is not (is dead) and will arise out of the bottomless pit (come out the grave). my opinion obama will become the next president and he will be killed probably within 6 mnths into his presidency (explaining one will continue a short space rev 17) then reagan will arrive onto the scene once again and everyone will carry his mark!"
The above hilarious comments are from:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message513426/pg1
Seriously, though, he did say:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” (Obama, p. 261, The Audacity of Hope)
That is entertaining Jeff, thanks.
ReplyDeleteRuss
Just wandering on through and wishing you a belated happy thanksgiving. I actually found your blog through a search for those pesky floaters, which I at 34 have just developed. I have one maybe two crossing my vision in bright light and on a computer screen and they are making me crazy.
ReplyDeleteI've been doing a lot of praying in hopes that mine will settle down and more won't form as I've read horror stories about floaters by so many people.
Have a blessed Sunday
Thanks very much.
ReplyDeleteAs you may have perhaps read, in 2007 I went down to Fort Myers, Florida and had the large clump in my right eye removed by laser. There is significant improvement without the large clump, but there is still a rather annoying floater in my central vision in that eye that either Dr. Geller could not see or would not laser as it was too close to the retina. I have smaller floaters in both eyes, but the myopic eye has many more.
I feel bad concerning your floaters and related. In my view, floater treatment is an aspect of Ophthalmology that is missing the mark. Opthamologists and MDs usually treat large floaters the same as small floaters. That is somewhat philosophically like treating large cuts that need stitches, like little tiny cuts.
A vitrectomy is too risky for me with my eye as it is myopic and I do not want to take the significant (5-15%) risk of something going wrong with surgery as well as the good possibility of a cataract resulting from the vitrectomy. Once there is cataract surgery, there is also significant risk with the lens replacement surgery with a myopic eye.
My hope is that there is some sort of treatment SOON that can force floaters beneath the sight line or shrink them very much. One opthamologist stated I will not notice my floaters ten years from now and I hope he is correct.
Happy Sunday,
Russ:)