April 27, 2006

United Church Of Christ Ad Rejected--Deservedly So!

The United Church of Christ was in a controversy recently when one of their television ads was widely rejected by all the major networks. The ad titled, Ejector Seat shows a traditional church with people seated for worship. A mother of color, holding a baby that starts to cry, begins looking a little worried when, phewm! The mother and baby are shot right out of the pew. The scene continues with a pair of men, obviously gay, and then a middle-eastern looking man and then people start getting ejected one after another including a man with a walker.

Honestly, to my warped sense of humor, the ad is pretty creative but is obviously a shot at churches, such as mine, which have the audacity to actually hold to some Biblical standards of right of wrong.

What is patently offensive about ad is that it is flagrantly untrue. The UCC, known to be among the most liberal of the mainline churches, takes a kernel of truth--we do believe homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice—but then boldly lies implying that churches like ours forbid such people as homosexuals, crying babies, the elderly, and people of color from attending our church.

The UCC boasts that they accept everyone; so do we but the difference is, someone who is living contrary to God’s counsel for life will, sooner or later, come to know the Bible teaches that such choices are unhealthy, unwise, and ungodly. They also learn that we exist to help them learn God’s wisdom for life and why it is to their advantage to do so.

Would the all-affirming UCC tell the habitually drunken mother that her drunkenness is wonderful, wholesome, and holy? Would the UCC celebrate the father who just walked out on his wife and five children and help him in the cause of taking up new residence with his new found girl friend? Maybe they would, but God wouldn’t and neither would we. We care enough for people to tell them when they are about to run their car off a cliff instead of cheering them on like the United Church of Christ does.

All I can say, is thank God the UCC is among the numerous liberal congregations that are shrinking annually. May it continue to be so.

Marital Status While Yet Unmarried? Ohio Court Stellar Still

Tony Perkins writing for the Pastor’s Weekly Briefing put out by Focus on the Family wrote in his March 31st column the following:
“An Ohio Appeals Court ruled Friday that the state's domestic violence law could not be enforced — because the state has adopted a Marriage Amendment. The Appeals Court said that a woman charged with beating up her live-in boyfriend could not be prosecuted because Ohio voters had denied marital status to non-marrieds.”
Okay in case you’re thinking you didn’t hear that right let me say it again in different words. Since the citizens of Ohio had adopted a marriage amendment which says that--marriage is when a man and a woman are married—a woman who assaulted her live-in play toy could not be prosecuted because the marriage amendment denied marital status to two people who were not married.
I have to tell you, I’m nearly rolling on this one. The thought processes--and I am being generous with the phrase “thought processes”--Liberals, resort to in order to get what they want are so obtuse these days that you have to laugh. But they’re serious which means it is no laughing matter.
Alas, Judge Mary Donovan, still with all her faculties dissented from the opinion criticizing the majority lame brain’s ruling that contended for some notion of a “quasi-marriage.” Donovan said that the suggestion is so absurd it has as much credibility as some idea of a quasi-pregnancy or a quasi-divorce.
What is interesting and totally out of character for the liberal half-wits who voted the way they did, is that they took up the side of the man throwing the woman to the rabid dogs of domestic violence; something you never hear of in normal situations.
But when the perverse and relentless ideologues of the homosexual lobby have any say, they will cast anyone to the pit if it means gaining a single spec of turf in their quest to normalize their willful, sinful conduct.
What a world, what a world, to quote the wicked witch of the West as she was melting away to nothingness. One day, for a people of faith, righteousness will be the rule of the day; until then, we will be tried more and more each day.

Howard Dean Puts Foot in Mouth Yet Again

Here’s a news flash that will no doubt surprise and astound. Howard Dean, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has said something profoundly asinine once again.
Dean told the Christian Science Monitor that churches should either pay taxes or shut up when it comes to political issues. Don’t jump the gun there; the laws are quite clear with respect to what churches may and may not do or say when it comes to political issues.
What is stupid about Dean’s comments is his use of the words “political issues.”
The Bible is clear on many social and moral issues; issues which are either permitted or prohibited by laws, which were discussed, enacted or amended through a “political process.”
Meaning virtually everything in our lives is touched at some point by the long arm of politics. In Dean’s world, the church should be prohibited from saying anything about such things as, fairness, abortion, adultery, homosexuality; greed; lust; pedophilia, anger, business, finances, discrimination, caring for the poor, caring for the sick and ailing, marriage, divorce and on and on it goes. Otherwise the church should pay taxes like everyone else—oops, well not everyone else; there are plenty of churches and not-for-profit organizations that are politically involved—genuinely in violation of IRS tax law—who support the Democratic Party. (Can you say, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Al Gore at the Buddhist Temple)
I don’t think Dean really wants what he says; but then again, he would just ignore such a law and apply it only to churches that are still moral and Biblical.
Truth be told, Howard Dean is bigot and a Christophobe! He is just a hatemonger who wants all of us Christians to go back in the closet and never come out.
Well Howard, thank you for sharing your mind with us but there’s this little problem piece of paper called the Constitution which says Congress shall not restrict the free exercise of religion nor the freedom of speech. Maybe you’ve never read it, but in light of your position, you might give it a whirl. You must get tired of the taste of leather, eh?

April 24, 2006

"Modern-Day Tower of Babel? Human Ability & the Fear of God"

(The following is a paper I delivered at a recent symposium on bioethics)

As we contemplate the city of Babel, ignoring superficial differences of space and time, it is certainly prophetic and should be frightening seeing how consistent the “natural” heart and mind of man is throughout the epochs of civilization.

In the next few minutes, I will scan the millennia hopefully making at least one point. Viz., When man divorces his heart and mind from his moorings to the heart and mind of God, the potential for wickedness is not simply a possibility but a certainty.

Ten months ago Leon Kass, Chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics addressed the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at Trinity International University. His following statements concerning the present and the future of reproductive technologies describe the challenges facing us with the increase of man’s knowledge and ability.

“It is going from the treatment of infertility by the production of any child to the provision of children of a certain sort; at first healthy children…to children of a certain gender and later perhaps, to better than healthy children through [genetically manipulated] enhancements.

Presently, “eggs and sperm for technological reproduction have been obtainable only from adults. In the future they may be obtainable also from fetuses and even derivable from stem cells. Scientists working with mice have already produced both egg and sperm precursors from embryonic stem cells. Indeed they have produced both egg and sperm from the same stem cell lines. An XX stem cell (female stem cell) can be induced to produce both the XX egg or also XX sperm precursors.

This means that a child might have a five-day-old embryo for its biological
father and mother. It means that homosexual couples could have their own biological children, and not to exclude the next logical step, if the stem cell lines were derived from a cloned embryo, the same person could be both the biological father and mother to a child produced from his own stem cell derived gametes.”

Centuries ago wise Solomon wrote, “That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccles. 1:9)
Indeed, we go back to the beginning.

“Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. And it came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.’ And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. And they said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make a monument to ourselves; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’" (Gen. 11:1-4)

Babel was a city that in today’s world would be designated a world-class, urban center showcasing the intellectual, architectural, and technological prowess of its citizens. What is poignantly illustrated with thoughtful consideration of the historical record, is that Babel seems not to have been a city of evil inhabitants but were “good” people who were using their God-given talents for the betterment of their society. The citizens of Babel were doing nothing more than applying the advances of their intellectual explorations which in the context of their epoch, meant building the equivalent to present day sky-scrapers.

Indeed, the Ziggurats of the Middle East have baffled even the likes of present day architects who marvel that a people so primitive could have designed such spectacular structures in light of the demanding necessity of mathematics, geometry and physics.

To argue that Babel was technologically superior for the day is beyond cavil.
But the issue at Babel was not the use of inherently evil technology for there is nothing inherently wicked about building a structure, even a great structure that stretches to the skies.

The issue at Babel as stated in the text was that their accomplishment was to be a monument to their greatness.

So one might assume that the significant focus of Babel was its citizens’ egos. But that would be a superficial assessment; rather their egos were merely the symptom of the real issue; namely, they had assumed the role of sole authority in their society. The inspired, parenthetical comment is added showing us where their egos-- energized and quickened by their technological savvy-- had taken them.

“This will bring us together and keep us from scattering all over the world.”

Perhaps you’re thinking, “I’m not getting it. Babel seemed to be a marvelous city; advanced, unified, together, at peace and were of one mind as a people.” But there was one enormous glitch in this quasi-utopian society. You see God had expressed His desire for mankind the moment He created them; namely;

“And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…”Genesis 1:28

“And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing will be impossible for them.” (Gen. 11: 5-6)

“Nothing will be impossible for them!” “But that sounds like a good thing,” you might assert. “Isn’t this what we long for today; a world that is united, working for the common good of the world family; not a world torn apart by politics and ideology, and religion which lead invariably to disunity and war?”

Some have suggested here that God was a bit insecure. But God’s problem with the city was not that He was worried about being diminished for His sake, but He was concerned of being diminished, for their sake.

The ingenuity of Babel became the proximate cause of God’s anger toward them, for their God-given unity and their God-given talent and their God-given ability, and their-God given curiosity, and their God-given intellect became self-serving. All of what God had intended to be used for His plans and His purposes became instruments of self-gratification.

The will of God, they determined, was no longer desired or necessary. In fact the very gifts God gave them individually as people and corporately as a metropolis, were no longer accepted as “God-given” but were part and parcel of some intrinsic splendor-- apparently self-generated or at least imagined--by their new deity collectively called “mankind.”

God said, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth; they said, but “WE don’t want to fill the Earth as YOU desire, WE desire to stay here so WE can pursue what interests US. And by the way God, have you noticed what WE have created; there’s nothing like it anywhere on the Earth. God you are no longer needed; God, you are no longer welcome in our town.”

So God went down--anthropomorphically speaking--and confused their language and consequently their plans, in order that God’s plans might continue unabated.

The issue at Babel was not simply their technology, but that their love of the Living God was subordinate to their love of technology. It is one thing to know how to build a complex, magnificent structure; it is altogether another to ask God if you should.

The details of that epoch are different than the details before us but I contend the principles involved are essentially the same which beg the question: Does having the knowledge and the ability to accomplish something necessarily permit, justify, or require, the accomplishment of it.

If one is amenable to a broad sweeping “in principle” argumentation even if somewhat simplistic, all we need do is revisit Eden. The prototypical family had the ability to eat from any of the trees of the garden; but having the ability did not permit, justify, or require that they do so. In fact we know it was to their detriment for doing so.

And so we attempt to navigate the expansive and precarious waters of human knowledge—with respect to reproductive technologies, and our ever-increasing ability to apply them.

First, it would be helpful if you accept the assertion that, like it or not, we all inherently tend towards an existential view of the world in which we live. I use the word not in the pure philosophical sense of Kierkegaard or Sartre, but in the sense that we are fettered creatures bound by the constraints of time and as such time tends to diminish the reality of the past and conceals the course of the future.

So the present, being that with which we are familiar, colors everything. Which is to say that the medical technologies of any given generation are “state of the art” to the people of that generation. And state of the art technologies invariably raise controversy in the generation in which they appear.

In 1847, when Hungarian Physician Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that the incidence of Puerperal fever was much higher in one of his wards than another he sought to discover why. He suggested to his colleagues that hand washing before dealing with their patients, especially after having handled a corpse, might drastically reduce the rate of infection. This seems laughable to us perhaps and we do not think of soap or antiseptics as high technologies, but germ theory was not yet discovered. And at their advent, they were controversial.

His colleagues argued that even if he was right, washing one's hands each time before treating a pregnant woman, would be too much work. And of course doctors were not excited about the implications if Semmelweis was right and vigorously excoriated his ideas. His observations were contrary to the accepted opinions of the day. Receiving so much criticism, Semmelweis went insane and died in an asylum.

We now know, everyone now knows, that Semmelweis was right. And we respond with disgust to the ignorance and scientific carelessness of a community that sent that brave physician to an early grave. But will the future civilization that judges our epoch react with similar disgust and indignation to the technologies of our culture dismayed by our apostate arrogance?

I hope so for that would mean that future generations will have come to their senses and realize their God-honoring place in the created order.

We like the citizens of Babel, are so impressed with our ability to do something that God’s wisdom on a matter is not merely discounted, it is at first ridiculed and then annihilated, and once God’s ideas are erased, God is soon to follow.

If the people of Babel, while defiantly implementing amoral technologies, albeit with a cavalier heart toward God, experienced divine intrusion and consequences to bring about His purposes, what should we expect as we defiantly pursue immoral technologies—those technologies which are inherently perverse as defined by that which assaults and insults the God instilled uniqueness and dignity of every human being?

With hearts so calloused we need more than merciful intervention—a gentle tweaking of our ideological foundations—we need a wholesale re-creation of who we are. And that is precisely the remedy God offers us. For when a person comes to Christ by faith, God certainly imputes the righteousness of Christ--in its entirety--to the one He has saved. It is completed the moment one truly believes. But the heart and mind of the one who believes does not undergo such instantaneous benefit. Rather they are, renewed day by day, gradually, as transformation is sought--allowing God to conform him to the image of Christ, by equipping him, as Paul writes, through giving him the mind of Christ.

Only with and through the mind of Christ can one possibly discern the heart and mind of God, which in light of the complexities of the technologies and issues before us, can we make judgments with respect to those which are legitimate uses of God’s gifts and those which are not. The defining criteria for what is and what is not permissible stands or falls on the issue of human dignity. And human dignity stands or falls on man’s special ness in the created order.

Theologically we call this the Imago Dei—that unique aspect of each of us which bears the impress of the likeness of God. It is within the corpus of the Imago Dei that our capacity to reason and to be responsible reflects our created ness. But the brilliance of that reflection is utterly dependent on a relationship with the Creator as He is the only authoritative, informing source.

If that relationship is hampered (as in the instance of transient disobedience) or annihilated (as in the case of habitual, willful rejection) then our ability to reason responsibly, or if you prefer, in a “godly fashion,” is compromised if not eliminated. This then is the center of any bioethical consideration.

Now--not all issues on the table are equally complex, but they are equally important. We have an impossible struggle before us; impossible by human effort at any rate. The struggle is complicated by what was once a clear demarcation between the values of a people of faith and the values of everyone else. Today that is not clear.

It was not an atheist or even an agnostic who posited “the source of certainty and human experience is the fixed point around which everything else revolves.” It was Renee Descartes who doubted everything except the fact that he doubted compelling him to proffer the destructive notion that the mind, not God, is the ultimate authority of what is good and right. We have yet to correct course.

And just as in the days of Babel, today the gifts of God are popularly deemed to be for one purpose alone and that purpose is to gratify man’s pleasures eschewing all pain. Steering much of the research today as I understand it, is hedonism and I am speaking with respect now to both the community of the unbelieving as well as the community of the faithful.

With the advent of the ventilator, we used to question whether assisting the physiological necessity of respiration and thus prolonging life was “playing God.” Today we are wrestling with desires to create life so that we may destroy it after we have harvested its transplantable organs all in the name of compassionate concern for quality of life.

All this is grounded in an altruism that the highest common good today is a life without complication; a life without infirmity; a life without pain. And yet throughout history it has been, and still is the case, that it is through man’s extremity, that he rises, by God’s will and plan--to his most spectacular fulfillment of the Imago Dei and God is glorified in the process.

To be sure, our theology has not kept pace with our technology, which is why our culture bows before the Baals of the laboratory looking to its ministers in white coats wearing gloves and masks.

Since our technological wisdom has eclipsed our theological wisdom, we are gravely disadvantaged. As much as we would like to live in a world of black and white, both our inability, and worse, our lack of desire to discern the mind of God, does not portend an optimistic future.

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” David wrote. “Behold, Thou dost desire truth in the innermost being, and in the hidden part Thou wilt make me know wisdom.” (Psalm 51:5-6)

What is clear is that the more technologically advanced we become the more Christ-like and the more dependant on God we need to become--not less.

Therefore, any stroll through the minefields of reproductive technologies demand we walk hand in hand with the God who made us.

Babel was technologically advanced for the day, but in the end it was their undoing for they did not use their technology to honor God, but trample Him under foot as they rushed to gawk at the marvel of what their hands had created while the deafening din of accolades to themselves drowned out all vestiges of prayer and adoration to the only wise God who is forever and ever.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)

May we learn the lessons of Babel and may He in longsuffering endurance continue to have mercy on us all.

April 13, 2006

The Gospel of Judas (part 1)

With the popularizing of the Gospel of Judas in typical fashion, the world of liberal academia is agog with glee that this is yet another testament showing what they’ve known all along; that Christianity—as we Bible thumping, narrow minded, bigoted fundamentalists have understood it--is probably false.
Professor of the History of Religion, Elaine Pagels of Princeton writing for the scholarly journal called the New York Times says this of the Gospel of Judas:
“Many regarded these secret gospels not as radical alternatives to the New Testament Gospels, but as advanced-level teaching for those who had already received Jesus' basic message. "
She is referring supposedly to the authorities of the early church and their assessment of this writing. In referring to another of what are called the Gnostic Gospels, Pagels writes: “Thus the Gospel of Thomas opens, ‘These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.’”
Here is what is interesting; Gnosticism was deemed a heresy—meaning rotten teaching—very early in church history; it was the role of the church to purge the early church of such distortions to the “faith once for all delivered to the Saints.” as the Bible in the book of Jude says.
You see Gnosticism posited the notion that true knowledge of God came only as a result of a spiritual experience whereby God communicated secret information to that individual. This was rejected outright from the earliest days of the church due to the obvious problem that such “truth” was totally unverifiable. How do you argue with someone who says, “This is what God told me?”
So the Gnostic gospels, based on someone’s own little experience were rejected out of hand. And yet today our beaming intellects grab hold of this document as if it were authoritative relegating centuries of traditional, verifiable and well documented gospels that contained eye witness accounts, corroborative reports etc. to the ash heap of religious myth while accepting this “Gospel.” Isn’t that strange? That a document, with a two thousand year history of scrutiny, analysis, and debate, would be thrown out for some late date gibberish of some loner contending he had some mystical experience with God is dumbfounding not to mention academically pathetic.
Don’t worry about this “Gospel.” It is just more flotsam and jetsam on the waters of Satan’s cesspool of counterfeit truth. Stay tuned for more.

The Gospel of Judas (part 2)

The Gospel of Judas, known since the 1970’s, suddenly breaks onto the scene with the thunderous cheers of the skeptics of the true faith. Whatever else might be said of this writing, according to one of my former colleagues and now Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writes, “…the text is late, the orthodox Christians said The Gospel of Judas was nonsense, and the theology (which is clearly Gnostic) is not 1st Century Jewish/Galilean.” “No one can dispute any of these three points.” Scott McKnight said.

Elaine Pagels of Princeton has a different viewpoint. After giving much weight and credibility to this document which varies greatly from many critical points in the traditional Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Pagels concludes, “What is clear is that the Gospel of Judas has joined the other spectacular discoveries that are exploding the myth of a monolithic Christianity and showing how diverse and fascinating the early Christian movement really was.”

Ironically, Pagels seems either ignorant of the history of the early Christian church and the Biblical record or she is being intellectually dishonest. The Christian faith was never a “monolithic” religion in the sense that it was without critics and that it enjoyed universal agreement on the basic tenets of the faith. That is what the church father’s were constantly battling for which is why Jude wrote, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3 The challenges were incessant.

The Apostle Paul wrote to both the Corinthian church and the Galatian Church warning them against such bogus counterfeits.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Galatians 1:6-7

Finally, if the Gospel of Judas is true and Jesus really did ask Judas to betray him, then Jesus is a lying miscreant at best. For even before Judas betrayed Jesus, Jesus warns that it would have been better for that man [Judas] to never have been born and later makes his eternal destiny certain.

The Gospel of Judas is suitable for lining your birdcage and nothing more.

April 06, 2006

Mainline Churches Are Dying--May They Rest In Peace!

“Money woes continue to dog the mainline denominations.” That’s the first line in a World Magazine article from April 8 highlighting what has been a trend for the past two decades or more; namely, “mainline denominations” are suffering from declining memberships which of course impacts financial stability.
Actually this is very good news. Why? I’m glad you asked. Mainline churches are those which have a contemporary history of abandoning their formerly Biblical roots adopting a religion of culture rather than a faith built upon the clearly revealed heart and mind of God in the Scriptures. Thankfully, over time, people realize that they are not getting God’s inerrant “TRUTH” and counsel for life but are getting a watered down version of inspired revelation with only remnants here and there (at best) of life changing truth.
In disgust, life long members of the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Congregational Church, United Church of Christ and the Lutheran church (except for the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) are jumping ship looking for something they can rely on; a world view grounded in something greater than the winds of popular sentiment.
Locally, the Morning Sentinel recently ran a front page story of the problems of increased heating costs which have hampered churches in the area. Not surprisingly, the churches mentioned as struggling financially are those mentioned in the national story and not one Bible believing denomination was mentioned. While these churches have been cutting staff and ministries, our church has been able to help out many families this year with heating oil subsidies.
I know these kinds of things get me into hot water with the listening public but the truth is the truth. Jesus is the One who said, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21
And the one thing all the mainline churches have in common is they have trampled, ignored or changed many portions of Biblical truth to fit their own cultural, moral, sexual, and lifestyle preferences. What is called an “open and affirming” church is just a euphemism for churches that have no understanding of what it means to love the Lord and to show that love by obeying Him. Jesus may be welcome as the always affirming Savior but there is only one Lord in the church and its members see him or her every time they look in the mirror.
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'” Matthew 7:22-23

Don’t take it up with me; It’s Jesus’ call and He is not ambiguous.

Middle School Bans Patriotic Clothing

The Shaw Heights Middle School of Colorado is comprised of half Hispanics. With all the controversy of late over immigration, apparently these youngsters have taken to getting into the mix of issues that are difficult even for adults to grasp. So with adolescents, what you get is ignorance abounding with know-nothing 7th graders making comments about the Mexicans going back to the border etc.
The Principle’s manner of dealing with it was to impose a dress code banning all clothing that is--or could be--perceived as “patriotic.”
My thoughts? First, I think all schools ought to have dress codes just as we did, when as kids, we were actually getting educated. I remember Jeannie DiPietro—the new girl from California--getting sent home from Geometry for wearing a skirt that was way too short. It might have been fashionable for the west coast but in the mid-west, it was grounds for removal.
Ah, those were the days; when everyone graduating High school could actually read, could actually write, and could actually recite the preamble to the Constitution and locate their own state on a map. Those days are a fantasy now.
So I like the idea of a dress code, but this dress code is inane. What are “perceived” patriotic clothes? Camouflage means hunting in my cultural context but at the middle school they are among the banned articles.
"We started to see a drift of focus," said Principal Myla Shepherd. "When you have something that is a political statement, become used in a way that hurts others, that's when I felt the need to step into a more neutral place."
Again I really sympathize but the “drift of focus” commenced about 30 years ago when, according to Jonathan Silber—President of Boston University--teacher’s colleges starting producing social engineers with a background in learning theory and abandoned the requirement that teachers actually know their subject matter.
With all due respect, these seventh and eighth grade half-wits are already out of focus and in control of the school as they are in most all schools today. The battle is already lost. The immigration issue is just one of a thousand distractions that have been allowed to become distractions by derelict parents, improperly educated teachers and powerless principals.
I’d love to offer some hope, but the answers I offer were rejected over the course of those same 30 years so; the bed is made; now try and get some rest. Good luck…

McKinney is the Only Racist in This Story

When can you violate federal protocol for safety, ignore a police officer, and assault a police officer and still claim you are a victim? When your name is Cynthia McKinney, and you’re a legislator for the people of Atlanta Georgia.
McKinney blew off Capital police, evaded a metal detector and ignored police orders to stop entering the Longworth House Office Building. The officer in this incident said McKinney was not wearing any of her congressional I.D. and was sporting an entirely different hairdo. Given the fact that these officers screen 30,000 people daily, it does not seem at all unrealistic that the officer didn’t recognize McKinney and grabbed her arm.
McKinney hauled off and punched the officer in the chest. But instead of being arrested for assault which is what would have happened to anyone other person alive, McKinney is playing the race card claiming she is a victim of racial profiling. You see the officer is white and McKinney is black.
McKinney, who is a democrat, has not found much, if any, support from other Democrats as they apparently appreciate the fact that the capital police are protecting their hind-ends in these post 9-11 days.
But the fact of the matter is that McKinney is just a sour woman with a huge attitude and full of hate. This is the fifth incident of this nature McKinney has been involved in. She also complained vigorously that she was requested to give her I.D. to capitol police when trying to gain access to the White House.
Having been to the Whitehouse, I can tell you, you don’t mess around with security issues when you are on the turf of the President. But McKinney thinks she is the exception and woe to anyone in her path.
I don’t know where this will end up; I know that charges are being considered and I sincerely hope that charges are pressed. It has nothing to do with this woman’s race and everything to do with her habitual disgust and violation of the law. If she is allowed to brandish her race as a weapon against law and order, then we have indeed succumbed to a racist reality of the world. That was hardly the vision of Martin Luther King and McKinney, hailing from the birthplace of civil rights, does his memory and her constituents a disservice fomenting hatred toward people doing their job to serve and protect.