Barack Obama Is Not Evil

This might disappoint some, but Barack Obama is not evil. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that he is nonetheless a politician.

Some believe that there is a "New World Order." Some believe the elites conspire to become even more elitist. It is true that many share ideals at the top which are certainly not shared by all. For example, eugenics (aka family planning), is still a very popular belief group that many of the better off play around with.

I do not think, at the human level, the intent is harm - is evil. Rather the elite, just like the rest of us also long to belong. The enjoy the company of like minded folks just like we do. And the especially like the notion that they have intricate part to play in the world.

It may seem as if the rich hate the poor, but this is rarely the case. Those who are better off are no longer those who have not. They have changed and no longer belong among the poor in a sense. You could say the two speak different languages. Yes, in many ways the rich and the poor are like two best friends who have grown apart. They no longer understand each other.

In a sense Barack Obama is no different than those who elected him. They see the world and have a similar approach to fixing it. Socialism and communism are not foreign ideas for humans. It is actual quite normal for some to want to rely on government, to have the government make everything better.

You see in the socialistic notion, the government is very maternalistic. Just as a mother might coddle her children, so too do many embrace this notion in government. It isn't a strange notion but one we had when we were infants. It's about control and stability really. Those who do not like the constant motion of life take comfort in a strong government that is there to catch one if they should fall.

When you think about it that way, you plainly see that the socialistic notion of government is merely misplaced compassion. One fears suffering and unfairness so much that they do all they can to prevent such from happening. You see the same with helicopter parents who never let their kids do anything because there is a slight possibility the kid might get hurt.

So you see Barack Obama isn't evil. He just thinks the most compassionate thing to do is to remove all risk and negative outcomes from the equation, so-to-speak.

But, I'm sure you're well aware that this approach is not always best. How can one be successful if one is not first allowed to fail. One learns more from failure than from success, after all.

So what is the government of the Republican party? Well, the Establishment is egalitarian in it's scope. It allows some aspects of a maternalistic government such as expanding the Department of Education, and it also allows aspects of a paternalistic government.

A paternalistic government is one where the government looks on, keeping a watchful eye, and allows the people to live. It is as a father watching a child fall and tumble off their bike. Instead of holding the child and bike and being right there like a mother would, the father instead encourages the child to try again. Eventually, the tumbles become nothing to the child as he picks up a rhythm of trying again.

This government is also stable, but in the distance. It is really more of a lighthouse overlooking a rocky bay, than a mother grasping a child's hand as they walk across the street.

Obviously, mothers and fathers are valuable to the child and its success. But in government this is different. In the socialistic notion of government there is no father, only a mother. However, in a paternalistic government the government is the father and the family becomes the mother.

In the paternalistic government the family would be as the mother to the citizen, gently easing them to confidence. And when the citizen leaves the family, the government in a way takes over but watches from afar. In a maternalistic government however, the citizen is kept in an infant state.

So no, Barack Obama isn't evil. He's just wrong. It is simple as that.

Who is Saul Alinski?

It's the question everyone is asking but apparently no one actually wants to look up the answer. I have. This will be a short one, as there isn't actually much to say since it's really pretty simple.

Saul Alinski was a community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. He was also particularly involved in the labour movement with unions. In his defining decades he sculpted a new method of class warfare. He even wrote a book effectively describing how the poor could band together to take back what was theirs from the rich.

This is why the Republicans are adamant the Barack Obama takes his cues from Saul Alinski. Apparently the Right is more well-read than the Left is about the Left's own guys.

Saul Alinski was a community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. Saul Alinski was particularly involved in the labour movement and unions. Barack Obama was and still is particularly involved in the labour movement and unions. Saul Alinski encouraged class warfare. Barack Obama has encouraged class warfare.

What's more? According to the Canada Free Press, Saul Alinki's own son had this to say of Barack Obama, "He has learned his lesson well." You can read the rest of that article here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784.

Further, Barack Obama wrote an essay describing community organizing which is quite revealing. You can read it yourself here: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-after-alinsky-community-organizing. The poster of that essay was correct when he said, "There is no doubt that Mr. Obama is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky. Even if we still aren’t sure exactly what an organizer is or does."

Florida CNN GOP Debate: A Review

I don't like Romney, but he pwned Newt on both immigration and investing in the housing market. Also, I really, really am starting to dislike Santorum. The more words that come out of that man's mouth the more I disagree with him. On Latin and Central America for example, the reality of his words is clear: Santorum would indeed bully and strong-arm these areas into being more like the States (as per usual), and Ron Paul was absolutely correct to point out that it would backfire just as it always has.

Think about it this way since both Paul and Santorum are Christians. St. Francis of Assisi to paraphrase basically said that one should always proclaim the Gospel and only use words when absolutely necessary. Likewise modeling American values and using words only when absolutely necessary would be far more effective that clutching the hands of various nations and forcing them along to be more American.

On Cuba - the fact the Cuban Communist influence has only grown in the region despite sanctions and isolation only serves to prove that such policies have utterly failed.

As for the focus on ads and who said what as a line of questioning - you've got to understand that the media is used to dealing with celebrities. As you may have noticed they aren't so good at dealing with real people and real issues as a result.
By the way Mr. Santorum, Romneycare and Obamacare are indeed quite different. Massachusetts already paid one of the highest rates in taxes before Romneycare, and Romneycare had actually little effect on taxes as a result. Also while it is certainly true that Obamacare forced coverage on 100% of the people, Romneycare really truly only affected the 8% of people who did not have health insurance.

Finally, is Newt Gingrich courting Ron Paul? He seems to be agreeing with and supporting Ron Paul more and more. Perhaps Gingrich is considering RonPaul as his running mate or at the very least put Ron Paul in charge of overseeing the Fed. Even Romney credited Ron Paul when credit was due. The only one who doesn't seem to acknowledge the common sense the Dr. Ron Paul stands for is Rick Santorum. After all, Santorum's biggest threat is that of Ron Paul.

Will You Eat Your Babies?

NOTE: This is my own personal take on things. It should not be taken as absolute truth as it is merely my own private interpretation which I've willingly decided to share.

There was nothing else on tonight so I decided on, "The Jim Bakker Show." For those of you who don't know his ministry is really big on survivalist technologies such as freeze dried food and such. Given the soon collapse of the American Empire, this isn't such a bad thing.

However, he did mention several times during the broadcast Deuteronomy 28:53 which says, "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, in the distress and extremity wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee."

I've read this verse a few times as I've read through the Bible. It never really alarmed me as I'd immediately thought that the verse was referring to abortion. But the more he repeated it the more I became convinced that I would have to look into it.

You see in my mind it provoked images of parents eating their children alive which was horrid. After studying this verse however I've come to realise that actually the children were first killed before they were eaten. The killing part is commonplace today what with partial birth abortion and also outright infanticide in countries like The Netherlands. But to eat their children also?

It's actually not that far fetched. You see, there are cases when people have eaten other people. Sometimes this has been for religious reasons such as by the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea. Sometimes it has been strictly for survival reasons as with the Rugby team that crashed in the Andes in 1972. But to eat their own children?

To put this into perspective, I'd like to recount a tale of this actually happening. Yes, indeed it is the precise event that the aforementioned verse is prophesying and it was fulfilled in about 68-70AD. The following is taken from The Jewish Wars, Book 6, Chapter 3, Section 3 by Flavius Josephus. Let's first start with some context:

"Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did any where appear, a war was commenced presently, and the dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life. Nor would men believe that those who were dying had no food, but the robbers would search them when they were expiring, lest any one should have concealed food in their bosoms, and counterfeited dying; nay, these robbers gaped for want, and ran about stumbling and staggering along like mad dogs, and reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men; they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into the very same houses two or three times in one and the same day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it obliged them to chew every thing, while they gathered such things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and endured to eat them; nor did they at length abstain from girdles and shoes; and the very leather which belonged to their shields they pulled off and gnawed: the very wisps of old hay became food to some; and some gathered up fibres, and sold a very small weight of them for four Attic [drachmae]."

So, it was a famine the likes of which we today have never known. Yes, this famine was far worse than what we have witnessed in the Sudan and elsewhere. Think about that for a moment. And then Joesphus recounts that which is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:53 saying:

"But why do I describe the shameless impudence that the famine brought on men in their eating inanimate things, while I am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no history relates, either among the Greeks or Barbarians? It is horrible to speak of it, and incredible when heard. I had indeed willingly omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, my country would have had little reason to thank me for suppressing the miseries that she underwent at this time.

What Josephus observes here, that no parallel examples had been recorded before this time of such sieges, wherein mothers were forced by extremity of famine to eat their own children, as had been threatened to the Jews in the law of Moses"

You can read the above in full here: http://tinyurl.com/73d6b75 as well as an even broader historical context of Matthew 24 here: http://www.preteristvision.org/commentaries/matt24.html.

Given that this has been fulfilled once, it is hard to say if such a degree would ever happen again. I happen to recall the words of St. Paul in Galatians 5:15 which says, "But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another." We need to remember that the Bible should be read as the early fathers did and as was understood by the Jews at the time of Jesus. Philo says that there is both a literal and spiritual element to Scripture and at times verses may be more spiritual. Considering the words of St. Paul, I believe what is important today about Deuteronomy 28:53 is it's spiritual element.

St. Paul goes on to list sins of the flesh saying, "I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:16-21)

My friends, did not our Lord Jesus Christ say, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck." (Luke 23:28-29) This is why I immediately thought of abortion whenever I have read, "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, in the distress and extremity wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee." Again considering the language of St. Paul earlier, it is not surprising when you note the behaviour of the women who are pro-abortion.

How Can An Atheist Be Good?

It comes up in conversation once in a while. An atheist or agnostic I happen to be speaking with breathes a sigh of relief to learn that I don't view atheists as vile and immoral people. They usually assume I don't consider them in a religious sense but that would be an incorrect assumption - I hold everyone to the same standard.

Before I get into things, I think it'd be good to be specific. When I say atheist I mean strict agnosticism which is really what atheism is. It's the same kind of idea where strict vegetarians are also known as vegans. Neither group is stand alone but requires strict observance.

Agnosticism is basically a lack of cohesive understanding of God. Maybe He exist, maybe He doesn't. One isn't sure of the particulars, you could say. An atheist is simply one with a lack of belief in God - that is one is certain there is no God. I tried atheism shortly after watching Zeitgeist for the first time. I only lasted about an hour and a half. Expiring that much faith was too exhausting to keep up. I spent most of my early life as an agnostic in the sense there is a God but He has nothing to do with my life.

Enough about me now, what standard of good am I using. There are two kinds of good. There's what most of us understand to be good, and then there is the True Good, or otherwise known as God. In case you're wondering, only God is good in the truest sense of the word. So, well be using whatever good means to you. It doesn't really need to be defined because it's a universal understanding we all seems to have.

Now the Bible is pretty consistent in what it says about atheists. It says they are fools. "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one." (Psalm 14:1) Most Bible reading believers will stop there. The good being described here is that of the God Good, not the human good. That is one who does not have Jesus Christ within them cannot be good, for Christ, being God, is Good. See also analysis of this verse via the Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary here: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id738.html

I happen to believe there are other verses that are overlooked which reveal more about not just the atheist this time, but also about the agnostic.

"For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed." (Psalm 139:13-16)

Yes, we often forget that even those who are not certain of God are also unique and personal creations of His. They too have the same inalienable rights and dignity that we all have. (Genesis 1:27) Simply being unsure or deciding to ignore God doesn't change these facts. And yes, whatever you do to the least of these you do to Christ. (Matthew 25:34-40) Very often those who like to call themselves Christian very easily pursue those who do not see what they see with the same passion the Jews pursued the woman who committed adultery. (John 8:1-11) Now I'm not saying that one can't gently reprove the doubter (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:15) - I'm merely saying to remember that you also are a sinner. (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10)

There is one other thing. One can ardently deny the existence of God all they want but all one is doing is deceiving oneself. You may no longer be aware of it, but your very sinews cry out affirming the existence of God.

"For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another." (Romans 2:14-15)

Yes, atheists and agnostics are not good all on their own. No one can be righteous on their own (Romans 4:5). Rather when they were created intricately by God (Psalm 139:15-16) and in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27) they became capable of being good insofar as the human sense of the term is understood. And they, like Christians, also have the opportunity of salvation because guess what Jesus died for them too! (John 3:16)

So yeah, this is why I don't look down my nose at agnostics and atheists. Often they tend to know more of Christ and the Bible than many who call themselves Christian!

Child and Animal Abuse

I watched a special on TLC tonight called, "I Cloned My Pet." It definitely illustrated why cloning should remain banned. Those who were on the show had extremely unhealthy associations with their pets.

A lot of people immediately think of those depressing animal shelter commercials when they think of animal abuse. Yes, that truly is animal abuse and more needs to be done to prevent it. But there is another form of abuse that most people don't connect and that many are guilty of. This kind of abuse is essentially treating your pet as if it were a human child.

Those who treat their animal like a human child are putting their own needs over the animal. When your dog has as many (or more) outfits as you do there's a big issue. That isn't natural at all. Dog clothes were invented out of the legitimate need of offering protection to those animals who weren't necessarily bred for a colder climate. Dog booties were created for the legitimate need of protecting paws from salt in the winter. These were never intended as fashion items and should never be used as such.

A lot of people will neither discipline or train their dogs. People who do this are essentially committing neglect. You owe it to your animal to teach it manners. This is the worse with people who own small dogs and refuse to discipline because it's apparently too fragile and has feelings. This is bull. You're the only one who thinks that, your dog certainly doesn't. It's people like these that give small breeds a bad rap as being noisy and nippy. Believe it or not, that's not normal!

Same with those who won't let their dog walk on the ground and must constantly hold it. That's more about you than it is about a dog. If you need to constantly hold something, go to the toy store and buy a doll. I know that sounds harsh but it's extremely infantile behaviour on your part. Let the dog be a dog. In addition to being happier, your dog will live longer.

And then we have real human children. children are being treated like objects more and more every year. From being sexualised by those pathetic child model competition to Planned Parenthood much to the delight of pedophiles (I'm sorry, minor-attracted persons) to being instruments for parents to live vicariously through. We no longer let our kids go outside because of our own fears and insecurities. We let them eat whatever they want even if they become obese because we just want to be accepted as "cool." It's abuse, it really is. Children are becoming less human and more like a commodity what being able to choose when we want children and select some of their aspects via IVF.

Essentially, we're treating our pets like they are children and our children like they are pets. Our society is messed up!

Acceptance Speech

Well, it is awards season. Yes, I know it seems to come earlier every year. But eh, we Canadians welcome it. After all, we only have two seasons - winter and construction! Anyways, I've thought about my own acceptance speech many, many times. It's always been one when I when an Oscar for either best director or best foreign film. Usually, best director. *fingers crossed*

Discours d'acceptation

Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ!

And thanks to Saints Mary, Rose, and Genesius.

Thank you Academy

Thanks to Mr. Bloxham for giving me the idea that I could direct.

Thank you to my fantastic cast and crew.

And thanks to family and friends for your support.

Play me off, Keyboard Cat!

In my imagination, the YouTube elites have succeeded in taking over Hollywood, and if I should get my way Toby Turner will be hosting the Academy Awards show. And so I'd have it arranged that in the event I should win we'll show the actual video of Keyboard Cat who will of course play me off.

A Technological Advance

I want to start off by first of all saying that if you want to steal this idea, take all the credit and make this or something similar, I encourage you to do so.

I was thinking recently about technology and in particular handheld devices and such. And I got to thinking of an idea. You know those reading devices like the Kindle or Nook? Well imagine that only mounted. It should be an approx. 12 inch screen which is extremely lightweight and hopefully waterproof so as to be mounted over the kitchen sink, on the wall facing the toilet, or even in the shower.

It should be voice activated and controlled, but should also utilize technology to allow you to control the device, such as turning the next page with your eyes. It should also have the option for the device to read to you. One should be able to select language, accents and the gender of the voice.

It would work like a Kindle and be wireless. I think it would also be great if you could move between different devices so that you could continue after you were done in the shower, for example.

This device would be strictly for reading, however.

Jesus > Religion

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a new heresy making its rounds. Except, it is not a new heresy at all but one that has had prominence now for the last 500 years. Every heresy has its own age that comes and goes. It seems that Satan is more tech savvy then most folks out there and he is currently sowing seeds of division using a viral video which pits Religion against Jesus. You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

The Lord placed on my heart the desire to defend His precious Body, and after some prayer and meditation I have agreed in the Spirit to graciously defend Him. That said, if there is to be any error found within me; some fault that I have said here, know that this is completely on me and not upon the Holy Spirit. And if I do speak here today words of righteousness know that it is not me that speaketh, for I am but a vessel, but that such words are indeed from the Holy Spirit Himself.

Therefore, brethren, I implore you, "...prove all things; hold fast that which is good," and that, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

Before we begin to disect the claims made in the video above, it would be fruitful to first define the word 'religion.' According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion religion is defined as the following:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.



2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.



3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.



4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.



5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.



6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.



7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.



8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

So you can see clearly that the statement 'Jesus > Religion' is actually an oxymoron. Belief in Jesus Himself is in and of itself religion. Just like the statement, "grace alone, faith alone, bible alone," is in fact a religious dogma or in other words, a religion. And this is just the start, we still have a whole video of similar statements to sort through. Let's get started, shall we!

"What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?" "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

"What if I told you voting Republican wasn't His mission? What if I told you Republican doesn't automatically mean Christian?" Jesus has no official party affiliation. Whether Republican, Democratic, or some other party, what's important are those who will do the greatest good. And still even those in power who do not do good, we are asked to pray for these and be obedient to them so long as our obedience to them doesn't contradict our obedience to God.

"Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same." (Romans 13:1-3)

"Just because you call some people blind does automatically give you vision." "Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence." (Proverbs 3:5)

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a provoking house: who have eyes to see, and see not: and ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a provoking house." (Ezekiel 12:2)

"I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars." This is a common misconception bred from a very selective view of history which originated in the mid 1800s. Few if any wars are started by religion - even the Christian religion. Look at the first few Crusades which were blessed by the Pope. They happened because the Ottoman Empire wanted to take control of the Holy Land, which was under the power of the Byzantine Empire at the time, because it was an area of trade with major trade routes going through the area. The army of the Byzantine Empire was weak against the army of the Ottoman Empire and so the Patriarch of Byzantium sent word to the Pope pleading for help. The Pope let various kings in Europe know what was up and blessed the forces which were rallied to the cause.

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor." To read about King Solomon building the temple of God as laid out by King David, read 1 Kings 6:1-38, and 1 Kings Chapter 7-8. Why? "And David said: Solomon my son is very young and tender, and the house which I would have to be built to the Lord, must be such as to be renowned in all countries: therefore I will prepare him necessaries. And therefore before his death he prepared all the charges." (1 Chronicles 22:5) See also 1 Chronicles 22:14-16.

The Church has done more than any other to feed the poor. But you must realise that the poor will always be among us (Matthew 26:11) and that there are yet still famines and pestilences before us (Matthew 24:6-10).

"Tell single moms God doesn't love them if they ever had a divorce." It has nothing to do with God not loving these, nor does it have anything to do with moms being single. It has to do with making a vow to God. You are married unto death unless the marriage wasn't legit to begin with, ie. abuse.

"Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as it liveth? For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband; so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man." (Romans 7:1-3)

We are called to love our spouses like Christ loves the Church and vice verse (Ephesians 5:21-33). At times the Jews were not always faithful to God, and just as with the Church, God never gave up and never stopped loving. This is why Jesus says what he says in Matthew 5:31-32.

"But in the Old Testament, God actually calls religious people whores." The funny thing about this statement is that it is true, but not in the sense this guy was going for. God does refer to people in the OT as being whores, but he calls them that because they didn't keep His commandments and in essence abandoned their religion. Read the entirety of Ezekiel Chapter 16 for the whole context.

"And thy renown went forth among the nations for thy beauty: for thou wast perfect through my beauty, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. But trusting in thy beauty, thou playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and thou hast prostituted thyself to every passenger, to be his. And taking of thy garments thou hast made thee high places sewed together on each side: and hast played the harlot upon them, as hath not been done before, nor shall be hereafter. And thou tookest thy beautiful vessels, of my gold, and my silver, which I gave thee, and thou madest thee images of men, and hast committed fornication with them." (Ezekiel 16:14-17)

"Religion might teach grace, but another thing they practice. Tend to ridicule God's people, they did it to John the Baptist." In effect, this guy, though he doesn't mean to, is judging Jesus by Judas Iscariot. The sheep in wolves clothing are by no means representative, rather one knows one by their fruits. It's hard to be specific with such a vague statement. Keep this in mind though:

"And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you." (Luke 9:49-50)

"They try to fix their own problems by trying to mask it not realising religion is like spraying perfume on a casket" This statement made my draw drop. This guy seems bright and all, his love for Jesus is definitely genuine, but this is just a completely ignorant statement. Religious people, if they are truly religious, do not try to fix their own problems rather they go to Jesus. Now the Holy Spirit, leads the Church in ways of holiness for we are called to perfection (Matthew 5:48). God could have led the Jews straight from Egypt into Israel but he didn't because they fought against Him wanting to be their own. They refused to work with Him and tried to find their own way to justify themselves. See also Psalm 23.

"But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God." (Romans 4:5)

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2:12-15)

"You see the problem with religion is that it never gets to the core. It's just behaviour modification like a long list of chores. Let's dress up the outside and make it look nice and neat, but it's funny that's what they used to do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath." Uh, Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit does change you. It's not behaviour modification, it's Love. If you simply go through the motions because you think you have to, you probably won't see much of a change. But if you do these things acting in love of Christ, they do change you. That change you see, is that as you draw closer to Christ, you die to yourself and leave sin lying in waste. It's not something to be forced but when you're in love, it comes natural. Also, simply believing things and doing things won't get to your core whether you admit it is religion or not. The only thing that that can melt your hardened heart is Jesus Christ, through an intimate relationship with Him. And just as He did things to show His love for you, so also do you do things to show your love for Him. That list of chores then, ceases to be a list of chores.

"For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:35-40)

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)

"Now I ain't judging, I'm just saying, quit putting on a fake look, because there is a problem if people only know that you're a Christian by your Facebook. I mean in every other aspect of life you know that logic's unworthy. It's like saying you play for the Lakers just because you buy the jersey." He is judging, even if it is by the standard Jesus gave in Matthew 7:15-20. I just thought I'd point that out. As you've read above, he doesn't always keep this standard of judgement, but in this particular context I happen to agree with him.

"See this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me. Acting like a church kid only addicted to pornography. See on Sunday I'd go to Church but Saturday getting faded. I acted like I was simply created to have sex and get wasted. See I built my whole life building this facade of neatness, but now that I know Jesus I boast in my weakness." This is a great testimony, but it doesn't belong in a topic where apparently Jesus trumps religion (even though they are the same).

"Because if grace is water, than the Church should be an ocean. It's not a museum for good people, it's a hospital for the broken." I agree. You will never find a place where there are more sinners than the Church. Even this guy confessed he was a sinner who found Jesus which is good except again this pits Jesus against religion and thus the Church.

"For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

"Which means I don't have to hide my failure and hide my sin, it depends on Him. See, because when I was God's enemy and certainly not a fan, He looked down and said I want that man." This is true. Though, this doesn't mean you have no free will. You must still accept Him time again along the journey of salvation. Even depending on Him is an act in and of itself.

"Which is why Jesus hated religion and for it he called them fools. don't you see its so much better, than just following some rules." Actually, he called them fools because they denied Him and refused to follow Him. That He was the fulfillment of the very religion He gave them (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18) and that He was religion Himself (Matthew 5:17-20).

"Now let me make this clear: I love the Church, I love the Bible, and yeas I believe in sin. But if Jesus came to your Church, would they actually let Him in?" My Church would, I know for sure, because it's really His Church and not mine at all.

"Because remember He was called a glutton and a drunkard by religious men, but the Son of God never supports self-righteousness not now and not then." Considering the cultures that embraced this Church I speak of (y'know the Irish, Germans and Italians) are called drunkards and gluttons themselves, I'm pretty sure He'll be right at home.

"Now back to the point, I think it's vital to mention; how Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrum's. See one is the work of God, and one's a man-made invention. See one was the cure, and the other one is the infection." Actually, religion is not the problem nor is it man-made (which should be obvious by now). The infection is pride.

"The beginning of human pride is to forsake the Lord; the heart has withdrawn from its Maker. For the beginning of pride is sin, and the one who clings to it pours out abominations." (Sirach 10:12-13)

"Because religion says do, Jesus says done." Right off the back, I knew this was false but out of curiosity I did a simple concordance search of "do" in the Gospels and got 857 hits. You can check out all the things Jesus Himself tells us to do yourself here http://tinyurl.com/743e25y. And since religion is the same as Jesus then it should be no surprise that what religion says to do Jesus also says do. Quite the coincidence, eh? ;)

"Religion says slave, Jesus says son." Actually, Jesus says friend (John 15:13-14). Religion doesn't say slave either, religion says this, "Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law. You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace. For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity." (Galatians 5:1-6)

"Religion put you in bondage, but Jesus sets you free." "For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are loosed from the law of death, wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ... Wherefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear sin, by that which is good, wrought death in me; that sin, by the commandment, might become sinful above measure. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Romans 7:5-8, 12-14)

"Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see." Jesus is religion. To see religion and Jesus in action read Mark 8:23-25 when Jesus heals the blind man twice.

"And that's why religion and Jesus are two different clays. Religion is man searching for God and Christianity is God searching for man." Remember how we defined religion earlier. Please note definition #2. And while yes Christianity is about God seeking out man, man naturally searches for God for man longs for God for only in God is man fulfilled for man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). There's nothing religious about it. See also Acts 17:21-23.

"Which my salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own. Not based on my merits, but on Jesus' alone because He took the crown of thorns and the blood dripped down His face. He took away all I deserved, I guess that's why you call it grace." This is true, but this is not a case of once saved always saved, you can lose your salvation be freely turning your back to Christ. See also Galatians 5:18-21 and 2 Peter 2:1-22. One can freely reject grace just as one can freely accept it.

"And while being murdered He yelled, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' Because when He was dangling on that cross, He was thinking of you. And He absorbed all your sin and He buried it in the tomb which is why I'm kneeling at the Cross saying c'mon there's room." Amen!

"So for religion? No, I hate it! In fact, I literally resent it." Again, Jesus is Religion. They are one in the same. You're both loving and resenting what He has done, even though that's not your intention.

"Because when Jesus said, 'It is finished,' I believe He ment it." He did mean it, along with all the other things He said.

Now, this lad seems to try to claim that he's speaking to false religion in the desciption of the video. You heard what he said though, so clearly this isn't the case. There are some good messages in this video, but it's tainted by his very worldly diatribe about religion. Such a shame. Let us pray for him and for all others.

Canada's Office of Religious Freedom

If re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised he would create a new government department to protect in essence, religious freedom. (http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/speeches-discours/2011/2011-034.aspx?lang=eng&view=d) He is now delivering on this promise.

The last thing religious people need is more government involvement in their respective religions. If any Government wanted to ensure religious freedom they should first of all ensure they have no State religion. For example, the Royal Family in the UK should remove themselves as head as the Anglican Church there. Here in Canada, an action the government could take is to get rid of all marriage laws. And in the United States actions could include removing mandates forcing religious institutions do things like cover contraceptive and abortion services.

What about countries that discriminate people of other religions? The people of those countries should decide what to do. Not the leaders and not external forces, but the people themselves. That is what a democracy is supposed to be. Ones own country is more than enough trouble as it is. Ones government should not bother with the affairs of others. Of course, this does not mean the people of various countries cannot stand in solidarity with each other in support of religious freedom. Rather, this should in fact be the natural and normative action of the peoples! We represent ourselves better than our leaders do, after all.

But despite all of this, do not think that a day will come on this earth when there will no longer be religious persecution. We Christians, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, promised us that this would be the cost of following him. Thus, we do not necessarily pray for an end to religious persecution, which is fine, but rather for the salvation of souls and for God's perfect will to be done.

"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)

The Proper Place of America's Israel

America, as you know, has a strange obsession with Israel.

In the late 1940's a league of nation got together and stole some land from the Palestinians and called it Israel. At the time, 4% of Palestine was made up of Jews. These Jews wanted nothing to do with this new State. The correctly inferred that simple calling the land "Israel" isn't what made the land significant - it was significant regardless. The Palestinian Christians felt the same way, wondering why the Holy Land was being divided.

And the physical land of Biblical Israel isn't even what is important. Many people errantly think that the physical land is where the blessings of God come from, but this is false. The blessings don't come from the physical land, rather the land itself was just one of the many blessings God gave to His people Israel.

See, it was never about the land, but the relationship between the people and God. The Israelites losing the land of Israel wasn't what was important, it was the fact that they had fallen away from God. Like wise, it wasn't the point the few times they got the land of Israel back that mattered. What mattered was that they had returned to God.

We see this when Jesus gives us the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The point wasn't that the Father had a fatted calf prepared or a great feast or rings placed on his son's fingers. The point was that the Son had returned to the Father.

And so the Father sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd to gather his people Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, and bring them into the good pasture land which is the Church, in preparation for that final land on the horizon, the true land of Israel - Heaven.

So you see, it's silly to obsess over a physical land in complete ignorance of the True One.

And by the way, Israel has made it clear they don't need the US to be their older sibling or babysitter. They are tired of being coddled. Israel can hold it's own and America needs to focus elsewhere. Not on a physical land called Israel, but to Almighty God. America, like man, cannot serve two masters. You've focused on Israel for so long that God is no longer welcome in the public square. You Americans need to stop worrying about the land of Israel and start getting right with God.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

"And he said: A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his substance. And not many days after, the younger son, gathering all together, went abroad into a far country: and there wasted his substance, living riotously. And after he had spent all, there came a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want. And he went and cleaved to one of the citizens of that country. And he sent him into his farm to feed swine.

And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him. And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father's house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And rising up he came to his father. And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and running to him fell upon his neck, and kissed him.

And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son. And the father said to his servants: Bring forth quickly the first robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry: Because this my son was dead, and is come to life again: was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field, and when he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing:

And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said to him: Thy brother is come, and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe. And he was angry, and would not go in. His father therefore coming out began to entreat him. And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found." (Luke 15:11-32)

Iran Should Have Nukes

There is a lot of pointless fear and talking points over Iran having nukes and I wanted to give my take on it.

Firstly, the most recent IAEA report released no new information about Iran's nuclear program. There is no evidence that suggests they have nukes or are in the process of getting nukes, just that they have modernized to the point that if they wanted to have a nuke, they probably could. That's all the report said. You can read it for yourself here: http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf

Secondly, all the unpredictable nations of the world already have nukes including China, North Korea, Israel and The United States of America. They have not used these nukes so I think it is safe to say no one else will either.

Thirdly, contrary to popular opinion Iran does not regularly declare that it wants to destroy Israel. In fact, it's more common for Israel to proclaim its desire to wipe out Iran. What Iran does often speak of, however, is how it is often America and Israel who run the show much to the chagrin of the rest of the world, which is true. If you want to hear what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really says (and not what a 30 second clip plus ten minutes of commentary via mainstream news would prefer you think) watch his recent UN address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H09nvdPF0KQ.

Next, it has been suggested (by Rick Santorum and others) that since Iran's apparent goal is martyrdom, that this would be the reason Iran would use nukes on the US. There are many things wrong with this reasoning. Firstly, that in order for a Muslim, like a Christian, to be declared a martyr they must die whilst proclaiming and/or defending their faith. Now Jihadists on the other hand, which is mistakenly referred to as "Radical Islam/Islamists" are a different story. This is a political ideology, not a religious one. These are political terrorists using their religion as a cover and it has fooled many. Now, in order for a Jihadist to be declared a martyr, they must die in the process of killing others including but not limited to other Muslims. Anyone not trumpeting the Jihadist cause is worthy of death.

If the Iranian state's chief motive then was martyrdom they would use the nukes on themselves and not on America. Further, the very design of nukes is so that you can kill large amounts of "the enemy" while not losing any of your own folks and that clearly doesn't jive well with the goal of martyrdom. Iran would do better to fight hand to hand on the ground which if Santorum is serious about attacking Iran, will probably happen.

Iran doesn't want to attack the US. Iran, like the rest of the world, wants the US to stop being a busybody and that also includes Israel. To hear Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu tell the US to leave Israel alone to its own affairs watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BaMLlnb_KI.

So yeah, if Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, let them. And if you protest citing nuclear proliferation - no one spoke out against Israel's own nuclear program. You can't be two-faced in the public square.

Rick Santorum and Big Government

Rick Santorum will say that he is a Conservative and not a big government guy. I happen to think he really does truly believe that he is not a big government guy. However, Rick Santorum is a big government guy whether he realises it or not.

Rick Santorum has admitted that he is a cause guy. He has admitted that he has helped out (read: lobbied on behalf of) various companies including a coal company. Essentially, it would only be big government if a democrat does it.

Look at what Rick Santorum says he will do if he is elected President. He will put forward Constitutional amendments and a lot of legislation which would support his views. This includes extending and strengthening the Patriot Act. He's also ready to go to war with Iran. He's also honest that he's done a bit of spending while in office but because he's spent less compared to others that makes his spending habits some how okay. In Santorum's mind he's just doing what needs to be done, but in reality this is the same thing Obama has been thinking.

It's also telling that upon questioning he basically writes off that he voted 5 times to raise the debt ceiling citing his previous record while in the same breath he says one can't keep raising the debt ceiling that one has to pay back the debt. He essentially implies that he'd keep voting up the debt ceiling if it didn't explode like it has.

If you think I'm being harsh towards Rick Santorum because he's a Roman Catholic, you are correct. There are many Roman Catholics in government today that don't always live up to their namesake. Just because Rick Santorum is a Republican, doesn't mean one should just turn a blind eye. A politician is a politician, regardless of Creed or ethnicity.

I want to be clear. I do not think Rick Santorum is a liar - he really believes what he says. What he says, however, is occasionally incorrect and should be pointed out.

But I don't want you to blindly go along with what I say either. Watch portions of the debate on January 7th which prompted this post here (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ltwlw4_qVc and here (Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY44FOOKq08. I also implore you to look up Rick Santorum's record as well as the records of the others here http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-santorum/ and here http://www.google.com/.

The Pursuit of Happiness

The right to pursue happiness, though not necessarily recorded in identical language, is found in most constitutions or bills of rights the world over. It is something which has different meanings to different people.

Why would any one want to be happy? It is simply a temporary emotional high that eventually fades. That is why you can only pursue it. That is why people slave according to their ideals to achieve it. It is ever elusive and once you get it fades as sand flowing through your fingers.

Does this mean the effort one makes is all in vain? No, of course not. Each of us has a calling. We each have some work which was ordained specifically for us since before the world began. What is the reward for completing such necessary work? Happiness? No, not happiness. If the reward was happiness then your work has been done in vain. No, your reward is something greater than happiness.

What could possibly be greater than happiness, you ask? Joy. Is not joy the same as happiness though? No, unlike happiness joy is everlasting. You see, true joy doesn't fade no matter what storms you travel through along the way. In fact, unlike happiness, joy is strongest in struggle and suffering. Indeed, joy is quite paradoxical.

So then, we are to pursue joy. No, not quite. Joy is not something which once you capture the game ends. Joy is a bit like jumping down a rabbit hole. You don't just have it you see, rather you go deeper into it until all there is, is joy. It is at this moment that whatever struggles and sufferings cease to be though they exist still. When you're enveloped in joy, it is as though you have stepped outside and as watching someone else's life. Though you continue to suffer, you are not really suffering.

Let me put this another way. Say you have broken every single bone in your body; that would be quite painful, would it not? You would likely be so pumped of painkillers though you would likely not really notice the pain any longer. This is how joy works. It is a sort of painkiller for the sufferings of life. Truly those like Mother Teresa and St. John of the Cross could not have endured their great sufferings had it not been for their joy. Joy which blossomed from love.

But love is a tale for another day. What is important for today is that you comprehend joy.

Further Reading, Devotion, and Meditation

"And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for you shall laugh. ... But woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation. Woe to you that are filled: for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep." (Luke 6:20-21, 24-25)

"The soul is wearied and fatigued by its desires… the (desires) disturb it, allowing it not to rest in any place or in any thing soever.… the desires and indulgence in them all cause it greater emptiness and hunger." (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. 1. Ch. 6. #6)

"Desire to imitate Christ – and study His life. Do the most difficult, the harshest, the less pleasant, the unconsoling, the lowest and most despised, want nothing, look for the worst." (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. 1. Ch. 13. #3, #6)

“Life is an opportunity, benefit from it. Life is beauty, admire it. Life is a dream, realize it. Life is a challenge, meet it. Life is a duty, complete it. Life is a game, play it. Life is a promise, fulfill it. Life is sorrow, overcome it. Life is a song, sing it. Life is a struggle, accept it. Life is a tragedy, confront it. Life is an adventure, dare it. Life is luck, make it. Life is too precious, do not destroy it. Life is life, fight for it.” (Mother Teresa)

“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.” (Mother Teresa)

“Let nothing perturb you, nothing frighten you. All things pass. God does not change. Patience achieves everything.” (Mother Teresa)

Romney, Santorum and Paul: Impressions of the Iowa Caucus

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum shared 25% of the vote followed by Ron Paul with 21%. Quite the impression these candidates made on Iowa, eh? Santorum got as much as he did because he was a hit in rural and traditionally socially conservative Iowa. Meanwhile, both Romney and Paul garnered most of their respective votes through mostly urban counties with a few scattered rural counties.

I've given much thought as to what one could see with an administration run by any of these three candidates and my current conclusions I'd like to share with you all.

A Romney Administration would essentially prolong the current Obama Administration just like the Obama Administration has really just been a prolonged Bush Administration. This is why Romney is the Establishment favourite - he's the same. He is basically what Obama would be if Obama was a Republican. The only real difference would be a more aggressive foreign policy when compared to Obama but still weak nonetheless. Romney's weakness aside from the fact that he's another Obama which Obama will exploit, is that Romney is a leopard who is a pro at changing his spots. He's flipped flopped on nearly every issue he's ever had an opinion on. I also recommend you browse YouTube which happens to have several of videos of Romney ignoring voters and avoiding tough questions.

A Santorum Administration would be different, but in what ways? He's a social conservative's dream in that he's staunchly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. However, he is one of the most war hungry candidates and of all the Republican candidates Santorum is most likely to declare war on Iran not long after being sworn into office. While a devote Roman Catholic, he's actually not as well read of the faith as I would prefer. That he apparently has never heard of the Just War Theory has stayed with me and frightens me deeply. If you watch the Faith and Family Thanksgiving debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY8Zw5NzUXQ) you will see that when Ron Paul brings it up as a standard for foreign policy, Rick Santorum's body language suggests he either isn't familiar with it or is avoiding it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with this in paragraphs 2302-2317 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm) but most especially with Paragraph 2309 which says:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;



• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;



• there must be serious prospects of success;



• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

The other downside to Santorum is that he hasn't been big on the economic side of things and this video of him praising earmarks only raises those doubts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qZG5eLMWd0. Also, Santorum seems to believe legislating morality is apparently effective and would go so far as to amend the Constitution to reflect this flawed belief.

And now for a Paul Administration. Ron Paul has been saying the same things for nearly 30 years and an honest investigation of his history reflects this. On social issues like abortion and gay "marriage" he would prefer the federal government to but out and let the states decide for themselves which means he'd support Roe V. Wade either being declared unconstitutional and/or repealed. As it so happens the states are well on their way to eliminating abortion with Kansas being the first to eliminate abortion mills from the state. As for gay "marriage" at the state level it has only come about through the work on behalf of politicians and has always been denied when put to a vote by the people. On foreign policy Ron Paul supports not intervening where it doesn't directly affect America which nearly every country in the world including Israel supports. You can see Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu essentially say he wants the US to back out of Israeli affairs here (in 4 parts) as he addresses the US Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnHArM2P9s). On an economic level Ron Paul is the only one who is serious about cutting the deficit, spending, and balancing the budget by cutting 1 Trillion dollars (cutting 5 government agencies) in the first year alone. And contrary to popular opinion he's not going to cut social insurance and medicare but rather allow young persons to opt out thus eliminating these programs over time.

So going by the winning candidates out of Iowa this is what awaits you. The road ahead in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida will be mighty interesting to see.

Dear Christians: Grow Up!

My fellow Christians, a lot of you are taking being as a child a little too literally. You're like a sheep wandering off with absolutely no regard for itself - you're not even aware that you've left the herd.

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal." (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)

Even though you claim to be of Christ, you still insist that it's all about you. You read the Bible only when you want to. You pray only when you want to. You go to Church only when you want to. By the way, you can't even be bothered to read the Bible but instead obssess over the words in a single verse or two. And you pastors are not much better than the flocks!

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves." (Matthew 23:15)

What? Did you really think that just because you claim to believe that Jesus Christ is your Saviour that you no longer have to worry about sin. That you could not possibly end up in Hell? Well, St. Paul had this to say to believers:

"I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:16-21)

Again, Jesus Christ had this to say to believers:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

If you really believed Christ Jesus is your Lord and Saviour then in accordance with the Holy Spirit your would freely choose to actively participate in holiness and perfection.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying on another." (Galatians 5:22-26)

"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48)

A lot of Christians seem to think that coming to Christ some how means you no longer have any free will and that Christ is some sort of puppet master that only allows you to do good. No, free will is a gift of Almighty God which even Christ himself exercised.

"And he was withdrawn away from them a stone's cast; and kneeling down, he prayed, saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done." (Luke 22:41-42)

So it is that it's not that we're robotic followers of Christ. Even sheep come to freely follow the voice of their shephard. They're not stupid, they don't follow some strange voice. Rather we walk our own journey to Calvary with Christ right by our side.

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; he leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul. He leads me in right paths for his name’s sake.

Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff—they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long."

(Psalm 23)

What It Really Means To Be A Liberal

The following is my perspective as based on the historical account. It may not necessarily be accurate, but it is nonetheless my perspective.

The word "liberal" gets thrown around a lot. It's one of those labels people like to proclaim and yet few could define if actually inquired of.

A modern day liberal is understood to mean, "favouring a relaxing of social traditions and a significant role for the State in matters of economics and social justice." (Oxford Canadian English Dictionary) This is essentially the same as socialism. Socialism is, " a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange. [...] a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism." (Oxford Canadian English Dictionary)

The footprint of a modern day liberal includes that of supporting gun control, special rights for minorities and they are also big on abortion and bailouts. This kind of liberal is an illegitimate joke who doesn't deserve to call themselves, "liberal." Let's be honest, you're a socialist.

What does a real liberal look and act like? Well, the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary defines liberal as, "favouring individual liberty and limited government involvement in economic affairs." Yes, this in fact is the original Left as realised by those in the French Revolution. Clearly the Left of today is nothing like the heroes of the True Left past. The left then had tried Government control in the form of monarchy and they were not going to put themselves under that kind of slavery ever again. The Left of today is practically begging for this kind of slavery. While yes, a liberal will claim they support individual rights that's not quite true. Modern day liberals only support individual rights as determined by the State.

Have no fear though because classical liberals still exist. They are what we call Libertarians. A Libertarian is, "an advocate of liberty, especially of an almost absolute freedom of expression and action. A believer in free will." (Canadian English Dictionary of Oxford) Do you know who is one of the most well known libertarians? No, I mean aside from Chuck Norris. Yes, that's right - Ron Paul. But isn't Ron Paul in the Republican party and therefore a Conservative?

Basically, the modern day liberal is the old time conservative and the neo-conservative is the old time liberal. Old time conservatives resisted change - they wanted the Government to maintain control. Neo-Conservatives and especially Libertarians want to see a limited government.

Wait, wait. Aren't Libertarians also libertines? While some might be, others such as Ron Paul are certainly not. A libertine is essentially someone who behaves without morals or a sense of responsibility. Most Libertarians are religious and believe morals and personal responsibility have a big role to play, they just don't believe the Government has the right to determine morals and responsibilities for them.

So, are you a real liberal or a phony socialist?

Confessions

The most common thing I hear against confession is that one doesn't have to confess to a man because one can go straight to God.

I love my fellow Christians, but the world doesn't revolve around you. It's not about your personal preference, its about obedience.

It so easy to just say you're sorry to the clouds and hope God hears you. Much easier than actually humbling yourself, and heart being contrite, confessing to a priest. There surely is nothing more humbling than confessing to a priest, and that is exactly why Jesus Christ made it so. (Matthew 18:18)

Now, English sucks because we have not plural form of you. The closest we come is the informal, "y'all." Why does that matter? Well, if it was the plural of you one would know Jesus is literally addressing the apostles around him and not you as you read the text. But you know what language does have a plural form of you? German. The German form is, "ihr." The German words for you are: du (singular/informal) and Sie (singular/formal). Ihr is translated as "you guys" or y'all.

Matthew 18:18 (English): "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

Matthew 18:18 (German): "Wahrlich ich sage euch: Was ihr auf Erden binden werdet, soll auch im Himmel gebunden sein, und was ihr auf Erden lösen werdet, soll auch im Himmel los sein."

Why does this matter again? Well, clearly Jesus gave them the power to essentially forgive sins. But make no mistake, no mere mortal can ever forgive sin. It is Christ rather who forgives sin. A Priest is acting in "persona Christi," or in the person of Christ. So, like a modern day ambassador. Does that mean the priest replaces Christ? Not unless an ambassador can replace the President. The ambassador, like the priest, does have authority though. In this case the authority is given to them by Christ.

So it's not really about confessing to man or even about repentence. The issue is really about how much faith you have. It always blows my mind how one can accept Christ as fully human and fully divine and yet stumble when it comes to something so simple as seeing Christ in others. In those who have His very Spirit. (John 20:22)