Moving On!

I’ve been experiencing a lot of problems with Blogger… so I’m moving on. You can find me at morethanright.wordpress.com.

Hope to see you there!

Splash

Hi, I’ve been away from the blogging scene for a while now. I may be returning soon. I know, I know, I’ve said that before.

Any way, this is a test at posting video clips on my blog. These are my children playing with their cousins in Indianapolis. We were on our way back from preaching in Kentucky, the temperature was in the high 90s. Aunt Keli and Uncle Jorge were kind enough to let us stop by for a refreshing cool off.

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

I received the following in my e-mail today…

Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock Cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

---

Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me, If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

---

Republican's Answer: BANG!

---

Southern Republican's Answer: BANG!! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?

Son: Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one!

Wife: You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

Good Answer!

I found these pictures at Hypocrisy Abounds.


This was published in a local newspaper.




Here is the response from a seventeen-year-old girl.



Read the rest here.

Today

I’ve taken some time away from the blogosphere, but now we must get back to business. I hope that each of you had a wonderful Christmas, and have made positive plans for the new year as you ponder your accomplishments of 2005.

I for one am not a big fan of the whole “Happy New Year” concept. I am not opposed to the well wishes, it’s just that to me it is just another day. People make resolutions and plan to turn over a new leaf or what have you, and that is just fine. But what is so special about 12:00 am January 1st? What is it about that date and time that makes it so magical?

In other words, what I am saying is not for the purpose of degrading that day, but rather to lift up all of the others. Every day is a good day to start again. Every day is a good day to resolve to do better or be better. Right now is a good time to kick a habit or start a new one. For as so aptly put. Now is the accepted time, behold now is the day…

2 Corinthians 6:2
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

I’m not slighting the 1st day of the year, but hey, lets hear it for the other 364 and sometimes 365 days! After all Psalm 118 applies to this day and every day. Does it not?

Psalm 118:24
This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

Now to those that have made New Year Resolutions. I am not bashing you over this, I am not opposed to it. I just want to point out that we need not wait. Every day is a good day to start again. In fact, God even declares so.

Lamentations 3:22-24
22 It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
24 The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.

So you messed up today, thank God that tomorrow is another day! Resurrect in the morning and be what God intended you to be. Do not pine away, letting the days go by, seize the day! Rejoice in God’s gift of yet another Day.

Today, is all you have. Yesterday will not return, and tomorrow will always be tomorrow. You only have today.

We are admonished to redeem or buy back the time. Use it wisely. Do not wait for a new year, for every day is a new beginning. In fact every moment, every second, is a new beginning.

Ephesians 5:16
Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

You will have no other time like the time you have NOW.

Live, Love, Give, Rejoice, Serve, Embrace, Laugh, Cry, Kiss, Share, BE, as if this moment were the only one you have and the only one you will ever get.

For truly, This is the day which the Lord hath made. Will you rejoice and be glad in it?

Rewriting History!?!

I found this picture at Speckblog.

Noah in 2005

In the year 2005, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.

They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.
To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky. Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."

The Bible & Capital Punishment

As you are well aware of by now, Tookie Williams has been executed. You have most likely noticed from my three previous posts, that I was in favor of his execution. This particular case has received so much publicity, that I feel it to be a good time to write on this subject.

Allow me to say first of all, that no matter how much I am in favor of the death penalty, I do not rejoice in the death of any. As you will see later on, God is in favor of the death penalty. He instituted the death penalty. Yet, he also takes no joy from the death of any.

Ezek. 33:11
11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Now on to the subject at hand. As I was browsing the internet last night. I came across these pictures. Few of which were holding up signs quoting portions of scripture. Some were just making assertions that we should practice what we preach and that we should show mercy and forgiveness.

Honestly, I struggle with my response to people like this. I realize that many of them are ignorant of the scriptures, that they have a few pet passages that they know of, but have no idea about the whole council of God. Even the verses that they quote or attempt to quote are usually taken out of context. They are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I do not fault them per se, for if they have not the Spirit of God how shall they understand His Spirit written Book?

Now let us shed some light on the subject…

Got Questions.org has a very good article on this subject.

Question: "What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?"

Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:4), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8).

When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). This should not be used to indicate that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all instances. Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament Law...they truly did not care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?) God was the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Therefore, I would say that Jesus would support capital punishment. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The Apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-5).

So there should be no question about whether or not the death penalty is supported by the Bible. Yet there are many people that will take certain scriptures, lift them out of their context, and try to apply them where they don’t belong.

For instance, they will try to take verses from the Sermon on the Mount. Verses like…

Mathew 5
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

What they fail to realize, is that this sermon is to the individual. The individual should not seek personal vengeance. This has absolutely nothing to do with law and justice or even matters of self defence. But for those that desire to apply this scripture I would strongly suggest you read all of this sermon.

How do you respond to verses like this?

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

What judgment? That of thou shall not kill. What did Jesus just do? He said that He was not doing away with the law, but in actuality He brought it up to the next level. Your anger without cause is likened to murder in His perfect sight.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Look at that. He raised the bar again.

He goes on to say in the context of “looking” and “lusting”…

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Pretty serious stuff. Huh? On a side note this would be a great cure for those that say they can’t help themselves when it comes to sins of homosexuality. If that part of your anatomy offends, cut it off. Bet you won’t. I guess you don’t want to stop bad enough. I digress…

The fact is those who use The Sermon on the Mount to further their liberal agenda simply have no grasp on scripture.

For sake of time, I’ll close with this. If you want to know what God says about the governments role, then lets look at the following.

Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

We are to be subject to the higher powers, but the highest is God. If the laws of the land do not conflict with God, we are to follow them.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

If we resist these powers we are resisting God. Because God ordained them.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

The government is supposed to be a terror to those that do evil. If we are lawful we have nothing to fear. That is if the government isn’t over run by liberals who want to call evil good and good evil.

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Vs 4 says much about the governments role in executing judgement.

*He is a minister of God.

*Be afraid. Why? He bears a sword to execute wrath upon those that commit evil.

*He is God’s minister to be a revenger. This way the individual does not have to take it upon himself, God gave us a government to take care of it.

Vs. 5 says that we must needs be subject.

*To what? The higher powers.

*Why? Because of our conscience, but if that is not enough to deter criminal behavior then for fear of the wrath of the sword.

If we were to practice this wrath more, we would have less need to practice it.

Abortion & The Death Penalty

I’ll be posting later today on The Bible & The Death Penalty. However, I highly recommend that you read this article.

Although I do not completely understand her position of being against the death penalty (I do understand the emotions behind these beliefs), I must say that this is an excellent post. The analogy is perfect.

Here is an excerpt…

A thought came to me during all the news coverage yesterday as I watched all those people with their little ‘save Tookie’ signs. How many of those people out there holding their signs to save a convicted killer would then be standing out there holding their little signs AGAINST abortion, which is taking a human life. The answer I came to is not many. For some reason the very people that claim to be against the death penalty and no one should be put to death, would then stand and allow many of those same human life’s to be murdered, butchered in the meat grinders of abortion clinics. Don’t like the choice of words? Don’t believe me? Look at the photos of aborted babies.

So how can they support abortion and be against the death penalty? Please explain how a person who has committed crimes and been given the death penalty by a jury of his peers can compare to the new human life who has done nothing to deserve a death sentence, they don't conceive them self, they are created by the donations, if you will, of two people who most often consent to have intercourse.

You can read more of her posts at Hypocrisy Abounds

Liberals Show True Colors in The Tookie Debate

Where are the people that fought to have Terry Schiavo put to death? Are these the same ones who were fighting to keep Tookie Williams alive?

Just wondering.

Does this mean that they are in favor of killing an innocent woman but would have someone who has done these hideous crimes go free? (Warning: Link is not for the faint of heart)

Justice Prevails in California

Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency for Williams.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday refused to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, the founder of the murderous Crips gang who awaited execution after midnight in a case that set off a debate over the possibility of redemption on death row.

Schwarzenegger was unconvinced that Williams had had a change of heart, and he was unswayed by pleas from Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes who said the inmate had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.

"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

It doesn’t matter if he had a change of heart or not. There is no reclaiming of the lives that he casually took. He is guilty. If he made peace with God, then so be it, but justice must be done. On that note, however, it is very questionable that he has… but only he and God can truly know.

He added: "The facts do not justify overturning the jury's verdict or the decisions of the courts in this case."

This is all that matters, not whether or not he was sorry, changed his life, or turned over a new leaf.

Prosecutors and victims' advocates contended Williams was undeserving of clemency from the governor because he did not own up to his crimes and refused to inform on fellow gang members. They also argued that the Crips gang that Williams co-founded in Los Angeles in 1971 is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.

Fry.

Williams was condemned in 1981 for gunning down a clerk in a convenience store holdup and a mother, father and daughter in a motel robbery weeks later. Williams claimed he was innocent.

Fry.

Just before the governor announced his decision on clemency, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied Williams' request for a reprieve, saying among other things that there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." He could ask for another hearing from the 9th Circuit or take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his last-ditch appeal, Williams claimed that he should have been allowed to argue at his trial that someone else killed one of the four victims, and that shoddy forensics connected him to the other killings.

Williams was convicted of killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at a Los Angeles motel the family owned, and Albert Owens, 26, a 7-Eleven clerk gunned down in Whittier.

Is there anything else that needs to be said? These are the lives that he is directly responsible for, not to mention the many that his gang of murderous thugs have claimed.

"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defense attorney Peter Fleming Jr. asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?"

Whatever! This statement doesn’t even deserve a response.

The impending execution resulted in feverish preparations over the weekend by those on both sides of the debate, with the California Highway Patrol planning to tighten security outside the prison, where hundreds of protesters were expected.

A group of about three dozen death penalty protesters were joined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson as they marched across the Golden Gate Bridge after dawn Monday en route to the gates of San Quentin, where they were expected to rally with hundreds of people.

And once again, good ol’ Revvie Jackson aligns himself with the dirtbags of society. Say “Cheese” Jessie, and don’t forget to put an onion to your eyes so that you can produce false tears of compassion.

Say It Ain't So...

Just some more proof that the Democrats care more about towing the party lines than they do about simple facts. Check out the WSJ’s Online Journal’s article: Democrats assail one of their own for backing the war.

Here are some excerpts…

The debate over Iraq is getting nastier, if that's possible, and the new target of antiwar Democrats isn't even President Bush. It's Joe Lieberman, the Democrat from Connecticut and 2000 running mate of Al Gore, who has dared to suggest we must and will win the war.

"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there," Senator Lieberman wrote on these pages November 29. "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq]."

When that policy substance was ignored in Washington, the Senator repeated his case last week in the political language the Beltway press corps could finally comprehend: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The media, and his fellow Democrats, seemed agog.

And it's true that in modern, polarized Washington, such bipartisan sentiments are unusual. But as Mr. Lieberman also noted last week, they have a historic parallel from the early days of the Cold War. Then a Democratic President, Harry Truman, was trying to build alliances to resist Communism amid ferocious criticism from many Republicans, including their Senate leader, Ohio's Robert Taft. But a GOP Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, stepped forward to support Truman, and the bipartisan "containment" strategy was born. Forty years later it would result in victory under Ronald Reagan.

We're now in the early stages of what might be another long, twilight struggle, this time against Islamist terrorism, and now the partisan tables are turned. While a Republican President is trying to win a campaign in Iraq that is part of a larger war, most Democrats are assailing his policy and predicting disaster, and even the party's senior Members have begun a Vietnam-like chant to "come home, America."

So it's revealing of the party's foreign policy condition that his fellow Democrats are now training their guns not on the enemy in Iraq--but on Mr. Lieberman. "I completely disagree with him," said Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader who went so far as to associate herself with the isolationist Taft Republicans of the early Cold War years.

"I agree with a Republican Senator, Senator Robert Taft," she said, who "said that disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy." That would be fair enough if Ms. Pelosi were merely arguing over the tactics of how to win the war. But she has joined Congressman John Murtha in advocating a six-month deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the consequences. She doesn't want to win; she wants to quit.

Her Senate counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid, averred through a spokesman that while the Senator "has a lot of respect" for his colleague, "he feels that Senator Lieberman's position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans." How's that for wartime leadership? Mr. Reid disagrees with Mr. Lieberman's support for the war because the opinion polls do too. Never mind that one reason public opinion has turned against the war is because of the relentless pessimism of the likes of Mr. Reid.

Patton -Vs- Murtha