Food for Thought #4 Redemption - Part 1

The first book of the Old Testament is Genesis. Genesis is purported to have been written by Moses long after the accounts mentioned in Genesis had already happened. However the accounts of people mentioned in Genesis were handed down through tradition to the time of Moses and the accounts are considered to be the inspired word of God. God inspired Moses to write these accounts using his own creative writing abilities but ensuring, through his inspiration, that Moses would adhere to the basic truths of what God did through his care and inspiration to the characters mentioned in Genesis.

Genesis begins with the creation by God of the first man, Adam, and later the creation of Eve to be a companion for Adam. They were placed in a paradise called the Garden of Eden with all kinds of animals and plants created for their use. Adam and Eve were created in a perfect state of control over their emotions. they were naked but not ashamed. Everything was provided them in this garden. They did not need to work for their food. They did not experience discomfort from cold and heat in their environment.

When, through the deceit of Satan posing as a serpent,  Adam and Eve failed the test (not to eat of a certain fruit) given them to show their complete love and trust in God alone, and as a result, they lost all the gifts they had been given freely in paradise. They now were ashamed of their nakedness and God told them they would have to work hard for all the necessities of life and their emotions would be difficult to control. They are removed from Paradise, never to return.  But God did not desert them.  He would help them in their difficulties.  God revealed little about their future at this time except that He would be with them to help them.  One thing God did reveal: a future conflict between a woman and the serpent and the woman would crush the serpent's head.

There were many descendants of Adam and Eve and God helped them through many trials. Finally these descendants covered the earth of that time but God observed that they all did evil things and found comfort only in his servant Noah, who did what was right. His servant Noah, all his family and relatives, all the animals by pairs of male and female and plants of different kinds were put into a large boat or Ark.

Then God destroyed all the people and all the animals and plants outside the Ark through a great flood that covered the earth while Noah and all on the Ark were saved. When the flood receded, Noah and all his people with all the animals went out from the Ark. God made a covenant with Noah that he would never again destroy the earth and its people by a flood and that he would help the descendants of Noah and his family forever. Many descendants of Noah again covered the earth with God always present to help them.

Some time later, in the city of Ur in Babylonia, God called upon Abraham who was a good and just man to settle in a new land he would give to him and his descendants. Genesis continues with the accounts of Abraham's family in the new land. God made a covenant with Abraham that his chosen people, the Jews, through Abraham will be a numerous people with numbers as great as the number of stars in the sky and that God would be with these people forever.

The rest of Genesis introduces the immediate descendants of Abraham. God promises a son to Abraham through his wife Sarah who is old and barren.  When a son, Isaac, is born to Sarah as promised, God, in order to further test the faith of Abraham asks Abraham to offer his young son as a sacrifice to Him.  Abraham, in spite of his understanding that a sacrifice of Isaac would mean a loss of the promised descendants through his son, he put his trust in God who, just before Abraham is about to carry out the sacrifice, calls him to stop.

Thus Abraham becomes famous for his faith and trust in God; he is the father of believers.  Isaac has a son Jacob who fathers twelve sons with names that represent the twelve tribes of Israel, the new name for Jacob.  Notable among the sons of Israel is Judah, after whom the southern part of Palestine later becomes known, with the northern part named Israel.

The most notable of the sons of Jacob is Joseph who, because of jealousy of his brothers, is sold into slavery in Egypt.  In Egypt, Joseph's God-given ability to interpret dreams allows him to interpret a dream of  Pharaoh.  Joseph's interpretation of the dream is that God will provide a seven year period of plenty followed by a seven year period of famine.  He advises Pharaoh to choose someone to arrange the storing of grain during the first period so there would be plenty for all during the famine.  Pharaoh is so grateful that he appoints Joseph Governor of Egypt to organize the storing of grain.

During the famine his brothers and his father Israel are suffering so the brothers journey to Egypt to seek food.  They do not recognize Joseph but he recognizes them.  He wants to reveal himself to his brothers but he at first finds a way of putting them to shame for what they had done against their brother.

Finally the brothers are reconciled and the entire family of Israel is welcomed into Egypt where they and their descendants thrive for many years until Joseph and the Pharaoh are long dead and the new Pharaoh does not have knowledge of the contribution of Joseph to Egypt but only sees the great multitude of Jews as foreigners.  The Jews are enslaved and cry to God for help.

Thus ends the book of Genesis wherein God has established his people Israel.  He has helped them through many trials and sufferings but does not abandon them.  He has promised them they are to become a great people.  This is the first phase of God's plan to redeem His people.  The next phase is to establish His Law by which they are to live and through the prophets reveal more and more of His Plan to redeem them through His Messiah.

Next will be Food for Thought #5 Redemption - Part 2

Food for Thought #3 What God Desires of Us

There is only one God. There is no other god.  Wanting other beings to share in his glory, God created heaven and earth. In heaven he created angels; on earth, amidst many other creations, God created man, male and female.

In heaven, God created Angels, pure spirits with free will, and desired that each of the Angels freely choose to love Him and serve Him only. This was the mission given to the Angels. Scripture reveals in The Revelations given to St. John, the apostle, in Revelations 12:7, that there was a great battle between the Angels led by the Archangel Lucifer, who, through pride, fancied himself to be equal or greater than God and St. Michael, the Archangel, who led the Angels who, in obedience to the desire of God, chose to love, adore and serve God alone.  Lucifer (Satan) and his angels (devils) were defeated and banished from Heaven.

On Earth God created a man and a woman with many gifts including free will. As with the Angels in heaven God desired that both these human beings love and serve God only.  In order to display this love for God, as written in Scripture in the book of Genesis, they need only avoid eating a certain fruit in a wonderful paradise given to them on earth. They unfortunately succumbed to the wiles of Satan disguised as a serpent, and ate of this fruit.

The point of this story in Genesis is not that this is actually how God required Adam and Eve to prove their love for God (not eating a forbidden fruit); the point is that our original parents were given some relatively easy task to accomplish and could not do so because their love of God was not strong enough. Having thus failed to demonstrate the love for God he desired of them, they were banished from paradise. In addition to this banishment they lost many of the personal gifts given them by God, not the least of which was the perfect control of their senses and appetites.

Their banishment from paradise meant they no longer had everything supplied to them in terms of food and the necessities required for the maintenance of their bodies. They now had to make clothing for themselves as well as find and cook food and build accommodations. They had to work to get the essential needs that were originally, in paradise, freely provided them.  And worst of all, whereas before the fall they were not subject to death, now they must suffer death.

These deprivations resulting from their freely choosing not to do what was pleasing to God are called the results of original sin. Since the rest of us are descendants of these, our original parents, we share in this loss of gifts and the need to work to provide our needs; we also must suffer death.  We cannot inherit from our ancestors what has been taken away from them.

But even though Adam and Eve and the rest of us, as their descendants, are in an imperfect state of being, God did not abandon us and still wants us to demonstrate our love for him and our willingness to serve him as the only God; this is our mission and God wants to give us another chance.  But how?  We do not have the status to accomplish this in light of our imperfect state.

It is now that God shows us how much he loves us, even though we are in this state that does not allow us to adequately demonstrate on our own how much we love God.   God promises to send us someone who has the proper status and will buy back our lost status. God promises us a Redeemer. Throughout Scripture we see references to this promised Redeemer. But how will this person actually redeem us and bring us back to our lost status needed to demonstrate our love for God?

This will be explained in: Food for Thought #4 Redemption

Food For Thought #2 Why I exist

Speaking to a friend of mine last evening at the Cheese Factory in Waikiki, I related to him the story of my speculating about the fact that my existence as I explored it in Food for Thought number #1. He made me realize that thinking about my existence as if I was a soul wandering in time waiting for God to infuse my soul into parents at a different time is in reality a result of my not understanding the essence of God.

God is. God exists.  God exists in eternity. We exist in time. God created man, both male and female. We cannot say that God created us at a particular time. That would be saying that God is subject to time. But God creates time. In my simplistic view of God's plan in creating man, I view time as a kind of capsule in which God, in eternity, sees all his creation within that capsule from its beginning to its end, as if we were to think of it as one moment. He sees his creation of man within this capsule, created in His own Image and likeness.  They have free will as He does.  He assigns them with a mission, and asks them to use that gift of free will to cooperate with His plan to accomplish that mission.

There are no free souls, sort of floating around in time, waiting for their parents to choose them. God sees all choices of parents.  The choice of humans, as parents, to freely choose to have children infused with souls is all part of God's plan, in allowing humans to freely choose to have children or not. God simply allows his human beings to make choices and that is within God's plan for humankind.

Thus when I wonder at my particular existence, I must see it as a result of God's plan, with the cooperation of generations of parents having made their particular choices in conformity with God's plan. I certainly may wonder at my existence, but to worry about possibly being created at a different time, in a different age, is in reality to diminish God and his plan for me to exist starting at the moment he has planned through the cooperation of my parents, in all eternity.  

What I must do in my joyous reflection upon my existence is to thank God for creating me, and not only thank him, but endeavor, with all the gifts that God has given me, to search for that particular mission for which God has created me; and to accomplish that mission through my grateful love for my creator, with my willingness to accomplish everything God has created me for and to help other human beings to do likewise.

But what is that mission and how do I find it out? That is certainly food for thought and such thought is the most important endeavor each of us has throughout our lives.   This will be the subject of Food for Thought #3.

Food For Thought #1 On Existence (Revisited)

(Review)
Having reviewed the thoughts in this essay I came to realize that they were motivated by a lack of maturation in my education of Cristian belief in a Catholic grade school beginning in the first grade.  Too many events at that time distracted me from my life in God and caused speculation about myself without the proper connection with my God as my Creator.  

Principally, I had a urinary tract infection for which I was hospitalized many times over several years in a "Childrens' Hospital" to allow elimination of the infection caused by a kink in the tract, using a procedure of constant irrigation of the tract . These hospital visits were followed by years of office visits until I was around 18 years in age.

At this time, in the early 1940's, they had not developed antibiotics of today to eradicate infection and my doctor correctly reasoned that surgery would not be necessary since with my growth, the tract would stretch and the kink would be removed naturally; but in the meantime irrigation would be necessary to help clear the infection and gradually open the tract.  I remember being terrified of these procedures; most were done with ether gas anesthesia which caused me to vomit  every time after recovering consciousness. 

I remember one time in the hospital hearing a number of footsteps, fearing they were coming to do this procedure while I was in bed.  My fear was not unfounded. Unannounced, a team of doctors and nurses descended upon me, the nurses holding me down while I screamed with fear of needles leading the irrigation tube into the urinal tract through what I later learned was called my "penis".  No anesthetic.  Only after a question from one of the nurses, "Do you want to go home?", words seeming more of a threat than words of comfort, did I submit and was able to calm myself.

Being made fun of at school for wetting my pants required the sisters through several years to privately talk to my fellow students explaining that I was not able to control my urination all the time,.  This finally stopped the making of fun. 

I bear no ill will toward these hospital doctors and nurses for their ignorance; they had no clue about the effects such lack of understanding and non-provision of information about procedures could have on a young child - they simply were not trained properly.  My only consolation is the fact that children are today treated with more consideration of their psychological needs using kindness, reassurance and proper information.

My state of mind in these early times were clouded with moments of fear and lack of understanding of how things in life worked.  Hence what follows is the thought of such a person even later in life:

#1 On Existence
One of the most persistent thoughts I have had during my life is the thought and questions that arise from this thought:  the thought of my own existence in time. I began my existence on this earth during the middle part of the 20^th century. Why during the 20^th century? Human beings have existed on the earth for, perhaps, millions of years, as more and more archaeological findings are made all over the world. Why was I not born, or brought into existence before my time in the previous century?

Where did I come from? As a Christian I believe I have a soul. As I understand it, every human person brought into existence has a soul.  A soul in a person is the spiritual part of the person. When a human person is first conceived in its mother’s womb the father and mother are in a sense co-creator’s with God of their new offspring’s body and soul. But where does the soul come from at the moment of conception of that person in the womb? Is it a brand-new, never having existed before, soul? In my case, why was the new soul me? I began to exist from the moment of conception in my mother’s womb. Why me? Did God decide to give me existence at that moment in time but not before?  Why me and not someone else?

That I exist at all never ceases to be a wonder to me. I, I exist!  I observe the beauties of the world around me!  A frightening thought occurs to me when making these observations, namely, what if my parents failed to have me as their son by perhaps some accident, disease, separation, death? Would I, never have existed? Or would I have been brought into existence later by perhaps other parents and I would have existence as a totally different person? Or would I  be the same person but in a different environment with different parents but still be the same I?

Are there perhaps a great multitude of persons who never came to be because of the many failures in the very nature of human procreation, or perhaps, because of decisions made by prospective parents not to have any children or to limit the size of their family? It is more a problem of the present-day for parents to make such decisions, that is, to be able to make such decisions.  But my point is:  what happens to human persons who were supposed to have been born but were not? Do they come to be or exist at a later time?

I don’t think this kind of thought on our existence is unique to me. However, it may be more unique to a person who believes in the existence of God. The reason for this is that a belief in God brings with it a belief in an after−life in which we will exist, after death, for eternity. To live in eternal bliss with God with none of the problems and pain that we have to go through with our existence in time on earth, is such a pleasing thought that to be naturally thankful to God for giving us this gift of life, of existence, through time and eternity, must surely be the reason for having the fearful thought:  What if I had never been born?  What if I never were to exist?

A New Common Sense Leader in Congress

Here is a common sense, honest warrior in the US Senate, Rand Paul, who was elected to the Senate in 2010 and has given notice that he stands for constitutional government and doing what is necessary to bring our country back from a disastrous four years of an administration that has wrecked the American economy by spending tax-payer money and borrowed money on "investments" that nobody is able to fathom.

More and more printed money comes off the presses and is gone, flushed down some federal toilet, landing in whose hands nobody really knows.  Over $16 trillion of debt and rising while singularly honest politicians like Senator Rand Paul urge Republicans in both House and Senate to stay away from the poisonous "Newspeak" of the leadership who are interested only in preserving their jobs, but instead to go home and talk to their constituents in their neighborhoods and business places about their Problems and needs to remind themselves they are working for the people and not old encrusted Washington bureaucrats.

Listen to plain talk on this video:

The Real War On Women

Democrat politicians and their Media counterparts accuse Republicans of a "War on Women"!  What they really mean is Republicans don't support abortion in such lock-step fashion as do they.  One would think, in watching the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina this summer, that abortion is some sort of Divine Goddess to be worshipped by all those claiming to be true Democrats.  Any Pro-Life sentiment present in a Democrat politician may not be publicly expressed lest that politician be scorned and ultimately aborted from the Party.  Such was the case with Governor Casey of Pennsylvania during the 1980's and 1990's.

That God plays little or no role in the belief system of Democrats, that Israel deserves little or no respect nor support from the Democrat Party was evident at this convention.  When Party leaders tried to restore into their Platform a mention of God and a recognition of Jerusalem as Capitol of Israel originally removed in their platform committee they were met with a storm of protest by at least a majority of members on the floor.  Three times a vote for reinsertion was called for and when a majority vote, much less a required two-thirds vote was not reached leadership restored the wording anyway.  So much for Democracy in the Democrat Party!

Republicans, on the other hand, following the leadership of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980's, held to the principles of our Founding Fathers who established a nation of individuals whose God-given rights are guaranteed by a Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

The first of the following two videos introduces a Republican female candidate in the second Congressional District of Arizona who has a sharp response to this false Democrat accusation that Republicans are Guilty of a "War on Women".

In the second video we see the results of the election of November 6, 2012 where McSally leads her opponent by 1300 votes but the election has not yet been called while outstanding ballots have yet to be counted.  If Martha wins this seat she will be a firebrand for conservative values in Congress.

The real war on women, from a female colonel's perspective

Check out this video from Fox News: war on women!

Martha McSally still leading in Arizona Congressional District 2- see video:
Martha McSally

An Encouraging Outlook

Today is another day.  The day after the reelection of Barack Obama as president.  There are many who are assigning blame for Mitt Romney not being reelected.  There are many coming up with their theories about why the Democrats won so handily.  in my previous two posts of yesterday I did my share of blaming.  But no more.  

Today I feel confident that all, being in God's hands and not mine, either all will be well with our country or we will  find another way to better things.  If I were to see Mitt today I would apologize for calling him a coward for, in my thinking, conceding too early.  I read a blog post today explaining why the author thought Mitt took too long to concede.  So go figure.  I do apologize, Mitt.  You are a great man and did your best.  You would have made a great president.

Here is a synopsis of what Charles Krauthammer said on Fox news as the President was being called the winner.  I share this view whole-heartedly.  You can see a video showing the whole interview below.

SYNOPSIS: Charles Krauthammer responded to President Obama’s re-election with dire predictions for the next four years. “We are left as a country about where we started but a little worse off … Obama will go back to who he is,” he said, adding, “He is a man of the Left and he will try to push his agenda through … the problem is that the country will slide.”

Krauthammer slammed President Obama for going “small” and “negative” in his campaign instead of campaigning on ideas. Given the narrow margin of his victory, Krauthammer believes that the president won, but has no mandate.

However, he is “not as despairing as most people are.” Krauthammer is optimistic for the Republican Party, citing its “strong bench,” naming several rising republican stars. Krauthammer actually thinks the future of the party is “quite bright.”

Check out this video from foxnews.com!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1952533554001/Krauthammer

Romney Concession Cowardly

Now Fox News can really take pride in bastardizing the American Electoral System.  And Mitt Romney in conceding so soon, pokes his finger in the eye of every American voter who finally came to believe in him. We voters have a right to see every vote counted and our candidates have the obligation, the guts, and the courage, for the sake of the American people they profess to love and care for, to hang in there until the last vote is counted.

Now nobody will ever know who really could have been president - very possibly!  Thanks Fox!

Think of it!  John Kerry would have been president in 2000 had George Bush conceded before retiring to bed that election night.

My only consolation is that Mitt Romney, a Paper Tiger, has promised not to run again in 2016 if he were to lose today.  Thanks Mitt.  Like he'd ever be nominated again?

Fox News Elects Barack Obama President

Yes, it's true! Fox news, the TV network that prides itself on being fair and balanced, just within the hour, was the first of the news organizations to declare that the state of Ohio and its 20 electoral votes have been won by President Obama when only 911 votes separated the 2 candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney with 20% of the vote still to be counted. Karl Rove, who was the mastermind in steering George Walker Bush successfully through two presidential campaigns in the years 2000 and  2004, suggested that it was unwise for Fox news to “call” the state of Ohio under those circumstances.

A call was made to the collection of "experts" who made this call and Michael Barone, one of them, was asked to come and appear live with Karl Rove and explain what their thinking was in calling the state of Ohio so early in the vote count for the president.  Karl Rove simply suggested that it would have been more professional to have waited a bit when so many votes were still uncounted.  Mr. Barone countered that their experts, including himself, had looked at the counties and precincts still outstanding and using statistics from the 2008 election came to the conclusion that a further account of the outstanding votes would certainly give President Obama sufficient votes to put the state of Ohio in his column. So the decision made by the experts was not to change their decision and thus 20 electoral votes were counted for president Obama which took him past the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to ensure his retention of the presidency.

It seemed incongruous and unnecessary to call the race so soon. When a race is called too soon it can happen, as happened in the year 2000, when John Kerry was declared president and overnight further votes came in and switched the decision to George W Bush. Another reason that this quick decision can be called unnecessary is that it can influence further counting in states not already called and more importantly such a decision can arrest further counting in the state of Ohio itself. When Fox news switched to one of the precincts in a County favoring Barack Obama, a comment made by Megan Kelly, one of the very sharp conservative journalists, to say “they don't look like they're doing any further counting”. While they may have been too engrossed in watching the victory celebration by Obama supporters, it gives one wonder about how earnestly they eventually will count the rest of the votes. Since Fox news has not only called the state of Ohio for Obama, but has called the presidency for Obama, what would be the urgency to count any more votes?

“One man, one vote!” Has been the battle cry of Democrats in the previous extremely close elections of 2000 and 2004 which George W. Bush won. Surely the rest of the votes will be counted and we will see who won the state of Ohio. Probably it will turn out to be president Obama; how embarrassing it would be for the "Fox news experts" to find out that Mitt Romney actually got more votes and won the state.  But this would not be necessary to demonstrate the "egg on their face" in taking this imprudent action.

I would love to see Mr. Romney win Ohio and the yet uncalled states of Virginia and Florida and end up being the actual new president of the United States. But whether this happens or not, my belief that Fox news has done its ” fair and balanced” approach immeasurable harm.  Can it be that their real reason for calling Ohio early as they did was to try to be the first to call the election of the president and not simply a reasonable, intelligent, fair and balanced call?

At least in my mind they showed little regard for the rights of voters to see the impact of their votes in an extremely close election. Their so-called "expertise" and "intelligence" trumps these voter rights, showing themselves as"elites" lacking the wisdom and common sense that people in such a position should extol. Shame on Fox news! Shame!

My Hopes, My Dream, My Prayer

This is my thought and my prayer that out of love for America, my country, I will vote for Mitt Romney!

See all the videos below!  At the end of this first video are many videos about Mitt Romney, what he believes in, what he will accomplish as President, and what he promises for America - real change, not a bunch of empty promises of the last 4 years.  See how many different people view Mitt Romney and what he will do for America.  See the many Latinos who have become part of congress.

See the governor of New Mexico,  Suzanna Martinez,  who spoke at the Republican convention telling her story:  she was a Democrat who agreed reluctantly to listen, with her husband, to a couple of Republican recruiters who were to speak about Republicanism.  Before the meeting, both she and her husband agreed to listen to what the Republicans had to say, more out of politeness, than any intent of becoming Republicans.  After she and her husband returned to their car, she turned to her husband and acclaimed, "Oh my God, we're Republicans!"

Why are Conservative Candidates, Radio and TV hosts and Journalists so Clueless about the Left's meaning of "Taxing the Rich"

Why are Conservative Candidates, Radio and TV hosts and Journalists so Clueless about the Left's meaning of "Taxing the Rich" and the best and most obvious way to diffuse the Left's use of this expression?

The argument goes:  Leftie says we must increase taxes on the rich to fix the state of the economy.  Conservie says if you raise taxes on the rich it would not produce enough revenue to fix the economy.  But if we lower taxes on all, including the rich, much more revenue would be generated.

There are two things wrong with this type of response by conservatives.  

First, it is difficult for many to understand either side of the argument, so nobody is moved from their original position.

Second, and most important, both sides are using quite different definitions of "the rich".

Early in the 2008 campaign Obama was on TV discussing with journalists and others what everyone thought the income for a rich person should begin with.  He toyed with a number of different figures: $50,000, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, $250,000,  ....... finally settling on $200,000 for an individual.  What, I believe, happened is that most people didn't take him seriously and just put it out of mind, realizing a rich man must be one certainly exceeding a million dollars in income and probably more.

Well, Obama was more serious than anyone, even today, realizes.  Anyone who has seen the movie 2016 can come away with the realization that Obama hates America as it is because he sees America just as he sees the countries like England who built empires on the colonization and exploitation of poorer countries, and he is determined to transform America from a powerful country into just one of many countries under the United Nations as a supra-government.

America has been known as a rich and powerful country wherein even the poorest citizen is rich compared to a person in a poor country.  It is therefore not a stretch to understand that Obama sees EVERY American as rich.  So, Obama and his Leftist friends see all Americans as rich.  

Therefore when a Leftist says we must raise taxes on the rich, the Leftist is saying every American is assumed rich and must have his/her taxes raised.

So the proper response to a Leftist saying the rich must be taxed is to raise the objection that Obama and the Leftists mean raising taxes on everyone citing Obama himself toying with income figures above $50,000 as meaning a rich person and citing a recent poll by Rasmussen where a majority say an average middle class income is only $50,000.  Above $50,000 means you're rich!

Before you vote, vet the candidate, then vote

A couple of days ago an actress who was part of a TV show called "Clueless" some years ago showed herself to be anything but clueless in "doing her homework" in researching the views and accomplishments of the Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney.  Having thus vetted him and finding him to be the candidate she believed would bring the country back from the terrible state of economic chaos at present, to a country of prosperity once again, she tweeted online her intention to vote for Mitt Romney.

Immediately she was hit with countless hate-filled responses containing the most vile depictions of herself as a person, that she might as well just kill herself, and accusing her of being a traitor to her race.

Shocked but not angered, Stacey Dash, a beautiful, intelligent, articulate and knowledgable black woman, responded in a way that illustrated her courage, her sterling character and especially her love of country.  Having voted for Obama in 2008, she was not blind to the fact that he promised a lot but did not deliver on those promises.  She wants something better.

She has trust in Romney to deliver what he promises.  Voting for a candidate just because of similar skin color is not a good thing; a candidate must do what is good for the country.  Stacey holds firmly to  her first amendment right of free speech, to her grasp of the constitution as the guarantor of her rights, and she believes that all Americans, regardless of race, are really a united people.  A patriot.  An American.  A believer in the American dream.  An example for all of us Americans.

Here she is in a TV interview.  I think we'll be seeing a lot more of Stacey.

What They Won't Do to Win

I've heard that Hilda, below, will have the unemployment rate drop from 7.8% to 6.8% days before the election.  I suppose that's because the Obama minions will be hiring all the street people with food stamps for one month and a couple of days until after the election when they lose these jobs right after Obama wins the election!  That's really being creative, what?  Well, that's just what I've heard.

It's interesting that Congress is blamed for not doing what is necessary to create jobs and that there is so little action.  The only inaction I can see in Congress is in the Senate, where the Senate Majority leader keeps blocking most bills passed by the House but blocked by him in the Senate, not even allowing a vote to take place many times.  Seems to me that not the whole congress, but the Senate, must bear the blame of an inactive or uncooperative Congress.

Who Are The Rich In America, Anyway?

Who are the rich in America? This is really a fascinating question because everyone on the left of the political spectrum, including all Democrat politicians, almost all journalists in the media, with the exception of Fox news, keep saying the rich must be taxed more than they are now in order to distribute the wealth. When it is brought out by conservative politicians and journalists (from Fox news) and conservative economists, further taxing of the rich would only bring in an extra few tens of billions dollars per year at most, it is not near enough, certainly, to pay off any part of our $16 trillion of debt.

Nonetheless, the left keeps bringing up the idea of taxing the rich. Either they are not very smart in dealing with finances or there is something else that they know of, but we don't because it is being hidden from us. Now let's see, going back to 2008 during the campaign for the presidency, Joe the plumber, in speaking with Obama, caused Obama to reveal part of the puzzle. Obama told Joe that it isn't fair for the rich to have all their money so that he intended to have that money evenly distributed among those who were not rich. Clearly Obama was talking about taxing the rich in order to distribute their wealth in such a way that everyone had an equal income. But wait a minute! If all the rich do not collectively have enough money to accomplish the redistribution Obama is talking about, then where does the money come from?

Later on during the campaign, Obama was asked who he thought the rich were. He gave a variety of answers in terms of people's income. I would've thought a rich person would be someone within income of that least of million dollars or so. But Obama started talking about $100,000, $150,000,  $200,000,  $250,000!  It became clear that to Obama, a rich person was a person who had an income substatially lower than $1 million or so. Obama was afraid of letting the cat out of the bag, it appeared to me, so he settled on $250,000.

It was only after I saw the film 2016, Obama's America, written and directed by Dinesh D"Souza, whose family in India supported his travel to America to receive an education when he was a young man. He appreciated the opportunity that he received in America and worked hard in educating himself to become an influential conservative writer.

This film portrays the life of Barack Obama before he became president of the United States. It reveals the important fact that Barack, in idolizing his father, a Kenyan, was determined to incorporate the beliefs from his father that the problems in the world today have been brought about by colonial powers such as Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland, which countries took over other less fortunate countries, exploited them by taking their mineral and oil resources among others, using these resources to manufacture goods which were then sold back to the people they had exploited.

Then when these colonial powers were forced to leave their exploited lands, people were left in poverty. This is certainly not true in every case. In many cases the countries colonized by these powers were better off in many ways than before. And if the countries were left in a poor state many times the colonial powers were forced out and civil wars brought devastation to the former colony.

It is sufficient to say for the purposes of this article than America itself was looked upon by Obama and the left as a colonial power. Although this is manifestly not true in the sense that if we did occupy a country it was not to colonize it, but to bring it to a better place than it had been. The Philippines after World War II, Japan after World War II, Germany after World War II, South Korea after the Korean War are examples of countries occupied by the United States after they were devastated by war but brought back to a state of independence, each having been able to play a major role in the economy of the world.

Obama and those on the left, the Democrats in Congress, those elites in the universities of the land, the journalists of the major media (exception Fox News) want to destroy America as they see it, a colonial power, which has selfishly ravaged other nations and peoples of the world. They plan, in turn, to destroy the economy of America as did George Soros, a billionaire, destroy the nations of Europe by destroying their economies and reducing them to socialist governments which decide everything for their people.

Obama then, like Soros, is a statist, a socialist, who sees America as a rich colonial power whose power must be destroyed by taxing the rich.  But it is said of America that we are a rich country!   Obama sees this as meaning practically everyone in America is rich, certainly compared to other peoples anywhere in the world. Then to Obama, who are the rich?  ALL OF US!  Think of it; all of us in America are rich!   Therefore it doesn't matter what your income is; it's going to be heavily taxed until you no longer can operate as an individual, as an entrepreneur in a business of your own, because you will not be able to pay the taxes.

So no matter what your income, you will be so heavily taxed that you will no longer be able to operate as an individual but only as a ward of the state and the state will provide you with what the state feels is appropriate; you will have no choice!

So there it is!  We are all rich no matter what our income and we all will be heavily taxed until we no longer can take care of ourselves because the state, the government, will take care of all of us. Until of course it all falls apart as it certainly will, like GREECE,  but that is in the future. a future for our  children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.   All wards of the state!

So when November 6 rolls around, think long and hard about whether you want to be part of a "new" America with the government taking care of you and telling you what to do, or do you want to be part of a government that recognizes your God-given rights, which allow you, as a free individual, the freedom to choose to take care of yourself and your family, while molding your own future and that of your descendants; a government, which out of a God-given sense of charity for the unfortunate, also has a safety net.  But for the young and eager who want to be the directors of their lives in the future and the future of their children, FREEDOM is the answer!

Think hard on this by November 6!  Do you want to be a ward of the state, a serf, a slave?  To live and die according a series of "5 year plans"?   Or do you want to be a freeman who chooses his or her own way, secure in the knowledge there is help not only from government but from private agencies as well, WHEN NEEDED?   Think hard and long on this!!  This is our only chance!

Mr. Rasmussen, Redo Your Poll

What follows is a letter I write to Scott Rasmussen, who is a pollster well known for the accuracy of his polling.  After I saw the results of a poll he conducted that was mystifying, I thought it would be very enlightening to conduct a similar poll, but including an additional question as to why those interviewed in the poll responded to produce such a result.  

Having received no reply or redo of his original poll, it may be that Mr. Rasmussen does not think this important enough to redo this poll with that additional question.  As I see things, anytime potential voters display an apparent emotional response which, in the election, might affect their vote, it's worthwhile and important to reveal that emotion.  What do you think, after reading my letter below?

Mr. Rasmussen,

A recent poll you conducted reveals a large discrepancy between whom voters want to win in 2012 between Romney and Obama versus whom the same voters expect will win.  

Whom these voters expect will win results in Obama 53% and Romney 33%.  

Whom these same voters want to win results in a fairly even split between those for Obama and those for Romney.  

Following up the original questions with a question WHY voters voted in such a way as to produce such a lopsided result in the question of who is likely to win, might produce much needed enlightenment on the feelings of the electorate.

Sincerely,

Phil Moore

Debunking the Debunkers

What follows below is a letter from a doctor and/or scientist who talks about scientific observations, complete with links to reputable sources of data, concerning observations in humans and animals when stress is experienced by the subject.

Since the letter, with its references, is a bit long, I start with some excepts followed by the entire letter itself. I hope that you glean from this letter that those who have debunked Todd Akin for making a statement that  "legitimate" "forcible" rape can inhibit pregnancy is not fanciful.  Akin, having realized later that he should have used the word "forcible" instead of "legitimate", I have made that correction.
So that this letter is intended to debunk those who say there is no connection between rape and inhibition of pregnancy.

The thing to keep in mind here is, as the author suggests, that the statements made in his letter are factual in terms of scientific observations made, but the issue of inhibition of pregnancy "remains controversial because the exact mechanism has not been elucidated".  

Letter with Excerpts:

Dear Congressman Aiken, (sic)

It’s unfortunate that the fate of a nation my (sic)  hang on the use of a single word. But that appears to be the case in your recent use of the word ‘legitimate’ rather than the eminently defensible word ‘forcible’. More unfortunate is that your apology was ill conceived by totally renouncing the concept rather than clarifying the categorization of rape.

You are correct in making the distinction between forcible and non-forced rape. Studies have shown that then is an approximate 1% pregnancy rate in cases of forcible rape, in contradistinction to close to a 5% pregnancy rate in cases where the rape was not associated with physical force. 

When one examines the medical and veterinary literature, there is strong support for stress induced delay in pregnancy or suppression of conception. This remains controversial because the exact mechanism has not been elucidated.

More recently, studies have evaluated effects of cortisol and adrenaline by measuring salivary secretions in women. This study demonstrated a relationship between adrenaline (the ‘fight or flight’ hormone) but not cortisol. Again, suggesting that high levels of adrenaline – as would be expected in a forcible rape - might indeed decrease rates of conception. 

A German veterinary paper, Pferdeheilkunde 24 (2008) 1 (Januar/Februar) 99-102 found that even transporting mares was sufficient stress to temporarily effect fertility. So, it is certainly plausible that the severe stress of forcible rape could reduce fertility. 

While I wish that you had used the correct word – forcible, rather than legitimate – I wish even more that you had explained the medical basis for the statement, rather than abandoning your statement to appease those who desire nothing more than a political victory.

I wish you well in your future decisions but hope that you will not be so ready to abandon your beliefs, and medical facts, to attempt to please those who cannot be pleased.

Letter in Full:

An open Letter to all who have ears to hear

From: Philip H Moore

Re: Todd Akin Controversy

Contact: phenrymoore@yahoo.com

August 22, 2012

An open letter to all my friends, family members, Republicans, conservatives, and pro-lifers who have ears willing to hear, open minds to reason with,

My name is Philip Moore.  All my life I have been a Republican, a pro-lifer and a conservative. I am a retired teacher of math and physics for 44 years at a community college on Oahu in Hawaii. In 1980 I began what I shall call my political life, first in supporting Ronald Reagan for president and then taking the leadership of Hawaii Right to Life as its president in1984 until 2009 when I retired.  While I taught math and physics, I have always been interested in history and politics. 

  

There is something, regarding politics, of vital importance I must say. It‘s importance requires my reaching those ears who have a major say in what goes on in our politics nationally.  But I lack the stature to reach and be heard by those who have the stature to influence others through their political office or their shows on electronic media.  So I send this letter to everyone I can think of.  What I have to say is simply this:

TODD AKIN AND HIS GAFF IS NOT THE ISSUE!

UNFORTUNATELY HE IS BEING MADE THE ISSUE 

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY CONSERVATIVE TV AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY CONSERVATIVE OPINION WRITER AND GUEST ON TV AND RADIO 

           with one exception I found − Cal Thomas on Fox News

THE REAL ISSUE IS − RAPE CAN NEVER BE USED AS A REASON TO ABORT AN UNBORN CHILD.

Congressman Todd Akin fell into a trap.  Maybe he’s a guy prone to gaffs like Biden.  But he did no evil.  Whether he stays in the race or not is not as important as using the swirling controversy to establish and effectively communicate the real issue that rape is always a crime against women but any child resulting from a rape may not be killed.

Notice I did nothing to qualify rape; it is always a brutal crime against a woman and the rapist is the worst type of criminal.  But should the child be killed if the woman becomes pregnant?  Is the child guilty of a crime punishable by death?  What happens if an exception for rape is included in legislation so that an abortion is permissible if a women is raped, BUT a woman claims rape when it was really consensual intercourse? 

These questions were answered by pro-lifers long ago by excluding rape as an exception in any right to life law to be passed by congress.  (Our nominee for president , Mitt Romney, thinks otherwise and has said he wants a rape exception?  Mr. Romney, do you really believe an unborn baby resulting from rape should have its life terminated?) The only exception currently included in any right to life bill is a threat to the life of the mother.

Here’s a link to a man of courage who, being born after rape, sees the wrong in bashing Akin and wants him to stay in the race:  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/22/as-someone-born-after-rape-i-say-todd-akin-shouldnt-step-aside

So, my appeal is: Don't focus on Akin and thereby give the Obama Left an issue that really is ours.  What would be a real disaster is to allow the Akin controversy to weaken the Pro-Life plank in the Platform to include a rape exception.  This would simply amount to Abortion on Demand.

THE REAL ISSUE IS: RAPE CAN NEVER BE USED AS A REASON TO KILL AN UNBORN CHILD.

Sincerely,  Phil Moore

OMG, What is Wrong with Republicans and Pro-Life Supporters?

The battle over abortion, killing a baby within a mother's womb, has on one side the so-called progressives (with their Commander in Chief, Obama), that is, the Left, giving support to the presumed legality of killing the unborn based upon the Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade in 1973.  On the other side are the pro-lifers, those who take the position that aborting an infant from the womb with the intention of terminating the life of the child is always morally wrong.  This battle has been raging for 39 years.  At present the pro-life side, with its legal and political fighters is set on passing a Human Life Amendment that will make abortion illegal except under certain exceptions; at present there is only one exception - a threat to the life of the mother.

It has been my good fortune to have been president of Hawaii Right to Life from 1984 until 2009. During my tenure as president there were many battles that we had to fight with our Democrat legislature. We also had to make it clear to other pro-lifers, that in considering whether abortion could be said to be legitimate in certain cases, we were brought to the conclusion that in no case could abortion be morally acceptable; to directly kill a child in the womb is always wrong.

But many pro-lifers felt a need to consider rape and the life of the mother to be legitimate reasons for abortion. In the case of the life of the mother, so rarely does such a threat actually arise that some pro-lifers felt that a Human Life Amendment with the life of the mother as being the only exception was considered unnecessary.  However, since this situation would rarely arise it was considered better to avoid controversy and allow this one exception.  Such is the case with the Human Life Amendment embodied in the Republican Platform.

In the case of rape, however, it was quickly realized that any woman who wanted an abortion could claim rape; and proving whether rape actually occurred or not would be practically impossible (this is what Senator Akin was really trying to say - his words "legitimate rape" were really meant to mean a case where a woman was forcibly raped and no consent was given by her).  Since it would be difficult to prove "forcible rape with no consent" from a woman's consentual  intercourse claimed by her to be forcible rape, rape could not be used as an exception.

So this is the issue!  Rape cannot be used as an excuse for abortion in a human life amendment because of the possibility of fraud on the part of a woman wanting an abortion and fraudulently claiming rape. It is simply unfortunate that the way Congressman Akin got into the detail about whether the rape was "legitimate", i.e., "forcible rape with no consent" or "a woman's consentual  intercourse claimed by her to be forcible rape" or whether forcible rape seldom results in pregnancy or not are issues that were discussed and settled by pro-lifers long ago and resulted in rape as an exception to the legal construction of a human life amendment being determined unacceptable.

This matter should not have even been discussed and was complicated enough that Akin unknowingly fell into a trap which gave an opening to progressives to attack pro-lifers as being warriors against women.  So Congressman Akin did not say anything that was insulting to women in any way; his only wrongdoing was trying to explain an issue, complicated enough, that if not well explained would land him in hot water.

My anger over outright deceit, in dealing with this issue, falls on those Republican elites in the Republican Party leadership who scream for Akin's head because they are complicit with the progressives in using this issue to tamper with the Right to Life amendment in the Republican Party Platform at the cost of possibly helping re-elect Barrack Obama.

My anger must also fall upon our chosen leader Mitt Romney.  Mr. Romney, by asking Todd Akin to resign, you have opened up the question of us pro-life conservatives as to how much you really understand about the politics of conservatives.

My anger also falls upon those who should know better but perhaps can be excused because they have not been in the trenches fighting every pro-life battle in National Right to Life and its State affiliates like myself to know these pro-life issues inside out.  Seeing my favorites like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity, just to name a couple, coming to the wrong decision about Akin has saddened me greatly.

Now, Mr Hannity, not everything is ruined.  We need to do the right thing and we can hang an albatross
around those progressive necks.

We simply have to explain this issue from the point of view of any rape exception to our Human Life plank being fraught with the possibility of fraud. Do not ask Akin to resign; instead back him up for trying and now that this SOCIAL ISSUE is out there being driven by the progressives, just change the rhetoric to bring out the reason why there can be no exception for rape in a human life amendment.  In other words it's always wrong to kill an unborn child who comes into this world from their mother's rape.  There are many well known people who but for the courage of their mothers would not have been among us.

Do this and we'll all be free of Obama and his progressives.

Newsweek cover to Obama "Hit the road Barack"

Peter Bella gives an excellent review of the new Newsweek Cover and the article within by Newsweek columnist and Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson who has written a candid and unflattering view of who this Barack Obama really is.
Peter's article describes the possible reasons why Newsweek has ventured into this new area of taking a conservative or right wing position rather than the single-minded position of THE MEDIA, with the exception of Fox News, on the Left and only on the Left with no attempt at giving both sides of a story and letting readers decide.

It is refreshing to see an accurate expose' of what the MEDIA is and what it is not but should be.  Journalism and Journalists should be about delving into a story to get at the truth, even if the truth can only be seen by giving an audience of readers or watchers of video, movie and film as much detail as possible, and not deal out propaganda by not disclosing vital facts.

What we conservatives know and Mr. Bella describes effectively is the current situation in which the MEDIA expounds only the propaganda of the Left with its tendency to bolster its lies with the horrible tactic of personal destruction of the lives of those who oppose the Left.

Peter Bella Hopes, as we all hope that this issue of Newsweek will not be just an isolated incident.  Our country is in a perilous position and cannot tolerate another four years of this president who utterly disdains the greatness of America and wants to bring it down to a godless state in which love of God, liberty and country as envisioned by our founding fathers will be long forgotten.


Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. 

Click on the following link:
Newsweek cover to Obama "Hit the road Barack"

How Important the Election of 2012 in America is

How Important the Election of 2012 in America is

Having just now arrived home from the theater in which I saw the film 2016, I can better understand the kind of president we have in Barack Obama.  It was not clear to me, before seeing this film, what the driving motivation of this man is.  I knew from many things he has done that the “change” he promised, when he took office, does not involve change that is good for America. He has spent money we did not have and has increased our debt to such an extent that many say in the near future we will be in a total financial collapse. He has weakened our military. He has done foolish things that make our allies question whether they can put their trust in America.

Many people are out of work.  Many cities contain areas of desolation with businesses closed, with people disillusioned and without hope. Who is this man we call our president? Where did he come from? Why is he doing the things that he is doing which seem to bring destruction rather than progress. He labels himself a progressive as many of his fellow supporters in Congress label themselves. Is he a socialist? Is he a Marxist? Is he a communist? What is he really trying to do with America? What are his beliefs that motivate him?

This movie, 2016, has revealed to me what his inner motives are that are hidden from all of us who are concerned about the direction he is taking us. The single most important fact that one can draw from this movie is that he sees the world, the Western world, as having been derived from the oppression of colonial empires.  As Obama sees it, colonial empires, especially the British Empire, have subjugated peoples, taken their wealth and used it for their own profit, leaving the people, after they have left, destitute. Whether this is true or not, and if true, to what extent it is true does not matter to Obama and others, like him, who see the development of the world in this way.

Though America has never been a colonial power (the Philippine Islands were never a colony of ours), our president still sees, especially in the Middle East, our involvement there as our desire to keep in power those who would ensure a flow of oil to America. Thus he sees America as he sees the British − a colonial power. He believes that colonialism, and especially those powers who have been engaged in it, must be destroyed and replaced with the state, no longer based on Western thought, which no longer believes in Christianity.

The way, Obama believes, to destroy these Western powers of colonialism is to bring them to financial ruin. The way President Obama thinks about America is that it must be brought to financial ruin and replaced by a godless state that will be able to join with other nations who likewise will or already have been brought to financial ruin and which are controlled by a godless state far from Christianity and Western thought. Israel, while not itself a Christian nation but is the forerunner of Christianity, is seen by the anti-colonialists as the power that has brought about oppression to the Middle East and hence must be destroyed.

Islam, in the eyes of the president, is seen as a power that wants to see the middle east countries brought out of the control of Western colonial powers. He does not see them as a terror threat. The world he envisions for America is not the America of our founding fathers, of our Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence.

Should he be reelected president of the United States in 2012 we will see the real Barack Obama, the hater of America as founded upon the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.  Those who will have voted for him will be subject to the “real change” he has been talking about.  America will become a godless state controlled by those who are in unison with his ideas of the world, many of them communists, freethinkers, godless and those who have never thought of America as the bastion of freedom in the world.

Be sure and see this film 2016 and draw your own conclusions.  Below is a trailer for the movie "2016 Obama's America" narrated and produced by Dinesh D'Souza.  Click on this link to read about Barack Obama and how he cares for his brother in Kenya.

.

It's much more than just Obamacare

The Catholic church has been mandated this year by HHS, Health and Human Services of the federal government, to offer, to all its employees in all of its institutions, health insurance which provides coverage for procurement of any birth control device and for the procurement of an abortion, otherwise the institution will pay a heavy TAX.

This is the result of the supreme court's decision today supporting the constitutionality of Obamacare and particularly the mandate to purchase insurance because the court has decided that the fine to have been imposed upon an individual, corporation, or institution failing to do so IS NOT A FINE BUT A TAX. This was the way the 5-4 majority justified the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Now the congress may pass any law requiring an individual or corporation  to purchase anything the congress deems necessary for their welfare or the individual or corporation must pay a heavy tax - thus SCOTUS, more than upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare has set a precedent giving immense power to government through this new taxing power of congress.

To see how this is very possible we only have to look at the operations of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to see how it would work. The EPA can regulate the use of any product that it deems would be dangerous to the environment; all kinds of sprays and cleaners that we buy at the store must follow EPA guidelines before they can be sold. The EPA also has control over gasoline additives. It has control over water usage that farmers may need, but should the water in some way damage some fish or insect that the EPA insists is to be protected then the water usage must be regulated. This is what happened in the Central Valley of California where farmers could not get the water they needed for their crops because the availability of water needed to be controlled to protect some small fish at the end of the line.

If the government should deem it in the best interest of the welfare of people across the United States that they drive small cars which utilize less energy as do SUV's and luxury cars, otherwise there could be a prohibitively heavy tax assessed. they have the power to do so. Of course there would be waivers given those priveleged by the government.  Thus according to the Supreme Court decision Congress can require citizens to purchase any kind of motor vehicle, washing machine, dishwasher, you name it, lest you be taxed heavily. This is the mandate portion of the Obama care monster. It must certainly be repealed, but SCOTUS failed to do so.

The only way that this monster can be done away with now is to ensure that president Obama is not reelected. Should he be reelected and Obamacare and subsequent mandates passed, the destruction of the American economy and democracy as we have known it will come about.  We will live in a Status or Progressive America in which the government will be all-powerful; the freedoms and liberties under our Constitution will no longer exist.

Unless we elect Conservatives to both houses of Congress and elect Mitt Romney as President, America will cease to be an America "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Kentucky Pride

Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul), elected from Kentucky to the US Senate in the 2010 election which almost resulted in a Republican takeover in the Senate in spite of Republicans taking over the House, has become one of the foremost fighters for the Right to Life in Congress.  (Play the video at the end of the post).

In his life away from Congress, he is a Physician which has given him direct experience with the sickness of abortion.  He talks about a baby in one room of a hospital, born early, being left aside to die, while in the next room another baby, born early and of the same age of gestation, surrounded by doctors giving the best of care and providing a ventilator to help the baby survive to a promising life.  Sick.  Crazy! This is Choice!

But Rand points out that a person cannot have any choice unless first given a right to live.  But today we are governed by fear.  A fear of having a child for whom there will be inadequate money for the child's care..  A fear of inadequate housing.  A fear of education expenses.  A fear of being deprived of freedom to do fun things.  A fear of having a girl and not a boy.  A fear of having a deformed child.  A fear of having a child with a serious illness.  A fear of supporting a child too early and not being prepared.  On and on the fears assemble.  One thing seems clear - if a choice is made to abort, the choice is always based on a fear.

The reason for such fear, I believe, is a loss of a real and sincere belief in God, on the part of many people. A loss in belief in God, Who provides for all his creatures and can always be called upon to help us and lighten our burdens for He is a God of Love and Mercy in a world of sorry, injustice and pain.

Compare this to those who have no belief in God living in a country where nobody believes in God.  They must depend on government to provide them everything.  They must depend on officials of all types to help them when in need. They must depend on communities with people who may not be able to help because of being overworked or otherwise too busy.  All this in a world of sorrow, injustice and pain.

Do we realize how much each one of us depends on God, even if we do not believe in Him?  He lets the light shine and the rain fall on each person good or bad, poor or rich, believer or non believer.  He gives and sustains life in each of us.  None of this can just government do!

Think on this:  If absolutely nobody believed in God, what would life be like?