Recently, while watching Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, interview celebrity turned talk-show host Dennis Miller (O’Reilly Factor 5/28/08), I began to think about the variety of shameless, yet glaring, double standards that exist in today’s USA.

Miller and O’Reilly were discussing “gay marriage” that night.  The issue is back in the news after the California Supreme Court gave “gay marriage” its perverse blessing.  There was a lackadaisical opposition to it among that particular duo.  Dennis Miller said from a genetic perspective he had to go with heterosexual marriage.  However, Miller added that “love” is a good “fall back position”, granting tacit approval to “gay marriage” because he knew ”gay” men  who were doing a good job of raising kids.  Then switching gears, O’Reilly asked Miller about the fundamentalist Mormon sect in Texas accused of abusing children.  They both agreed that such behavior was reprehensible.  Almost laughably, the two agreed that the two types of relationship didn’t have a thing to do with the other.  That is nonsense because both “gay marriage” and polygamy represent a form of immoral sexual relationship.  However, polygamy would, according to the Bible, have a greater degree of acceptability over homosexuality contrary to what those pompous, bloviating (to use one of O’Reilly’s favorite words) gentlemen seemed to indicate. 

Then there is the matter of anger. It seems that the anger of white males is not too acceptable. For example, John McCain, the GOP presumed nominee, was accused of getting angry when asked about his conversation with 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, John Kerry. Kerry supposedly wanted McCain as his running mate.  The reporter charging McCain was baiting him, overstating his “anger.” It seems this is a manipulation technique worthy of the Gestapo, seeking to silence someone by accusing them of getting angry.  Besides, given the line of questioning, McCain’s irritation and anger (if it existed) may have been justified. 

On to the gender front. It seems man’s anger toward a petty, quarrelsome, and/or complaining woman or wife, if they happen to be married (see Proverbs 21:19), while human is often deemed to be unacceptable, nearly unforgiveable or even threatening to some unless the woman is unpopular and way “over the top”, ala Rosie O’Donnell.  On the contrary, the anger of a flaky or perhaps vindictive woman freaking out when her boyfriend, husband, or date leaves a spoon in the sink, or doesn’t pick up his socks, or performs some other “unforgivable”, yet trivial “sin” is often feared, appeased or given approval.  

Then there is the anger of political conservatives to runaway government spending or hypocritical, liberal media bias which is ignored or deemed to be fanatical.  The same can be said for the irrational vitriol that spews from a “Bush hating”, peace activists who may not be all that peaceful in their opposition to the Iraq War or any war for that matter, no matter how justified in the face of a violent or dangerous enemy. 

Indeed, Jesus Christ himself became angry at times.  In Mark 3 Jesus was healing a man with a shriveled hand.  Mark 3:2 NASB notes, “Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath.” As an aside, compare the folks here in Mark 3 with today’s hypocrites–indeed their spirit is remarkably similar.  Hypocritical liars just don’t seem to get it!  The passage continues…”Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, ‘Stand up in front of everyone.’  Then Jesus asked them, ‘Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?’ But they remained silent. (Again, this is the reaction of today’s hypocrites when faced with truth. They are angry but they may say nothing. Indeed, they may be burning with anger. However, in their deceit they often hide their true intentions ). ” Jesus’ reaction shows that anger can be a positive. Mark 3:5 NIV adds, “He looked around at them IN ANGER AND DEEPLY DISTRESSED AT THEIR STUBBORN HEARTS…”  

Some will even appease or regard with indifference the desire of many Muslims to kill infidels (Christians and Jews) or blow Israel off the map. Such behavior is truly puzzling and outrageous when the same person often goes ballistic because President George W. Bush took the U.S. to war in Iraq. 

Indeed, it is helpful to compare two movies to illustrate the difference in treatment of the two religions, Islam and Christianity.

One rather low budget documentary that has a distinctly anti-Christian feel with a lot of subtle ridicule and some outright hostility, is called “Jesus Camp”.  I could use the granddaddy of Christian movies recently, “The Passion of the Christ” but I thought “Jesus Camp” is more illustrative of an overt anti-Christian bias and how it is manifested.  Frankly, I hadn’t heard of the movie but I noticed it recently while searching for a movie on NetFlix. Being curious, and frankly suspicious, I thought it would be worth a look.  I suspected it would be a slam against so called “Bible thumpers” (of which I am one), i.e. fundamentalist/evangelical Christians or those who take the living, life-giving, infallible Bible seriously.

I would say I was proved correct.  A Loki Films production, the movie started with a diatribe against Christians most likely designed to “guide” the viewer to the “correct” conclusion, i.e. that evangelical Christians are nutty, pro-Bush, pro-war zealots among other things.  The movie’s introduction featured a radio talk-show host named Mike Papantonio of the “Ring of Fire” radio show. Now Mike and a “Christian” caller (the caller described himself as Christian anyway) proceeded to label such “aggressive” Christians (Translation: the Christians who love America and don’t want our heritage to wasted) featured in the movie as “authoritarian”, “nothing gentle” about them, “nothing compassionate” about them, “nothing Christian” about them, “it’s upside down”, “doesn’t make sense”, and other hypocritical blather and nonsense.

This was from critics who likely didn’t know the Bible or who twisted what it said and are not qualified to make judgments requiring wisdom and discernment.  Furthermore, Mr. Papantonio noted the obligatory reference to the Sermon on the Mount saying that Jesus told us to be peacemakers.  This is the kind of passage that Laodicean, lukewarm, passive Christians often use to justify their limp wristed “faith.” Well, Mr. Papantonio please note Luke 12:51 in which Jesus asks and answers his own question.  Jesus said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”  And of course there was the mindless, conformist reference to the misguided doctrine of separation of church and state. Now keep in mind that this so-called “Jesus Camp” featured in the movie was not advocating the death of secular liberals, Muslims, Catholics, etc.  It merely was equipping young people to express their Bible-based views ( the infallible word of God) in the public arena. To the critics it seemed, an unforgiveable crime.

Then, let’s turn to the movie, “Fitma the Movie” released in Europe as a critique to Islam.  It would be fair to do a equal comparison.  But the problem is that Network Solutions, the giant web server has blocked it.  On April 22, 2008 when searching under “fitnathemovie”, I got Network Solutions’ ”Acceptable Use Policy”.  That policy notes, “This Acceptable Use Policy encourages the responsible use of Network Solutions’ services and delineates the relatively narrow range of uses of Network Solutions services that are contrary to Network Solutions’ mission, generally because such uses either pose an unacceptable risk to the stability, integrity, or quality of Network Solutions’ systems or the systems of its vendors, or harm (or threaten to harm) the rights and interests of third parties.” Basically, they didn’t want to get bombed by Islamic terrorists so they appeased them. 

I did manage to view the movie, or at least part of it, on YouTube.  The movie showed the very real violence of fundamentalist Islam and the outright, unfiltered, bigoted hatred against Christians and Jews.  The response from liberals ranges from Barrack Obama’s eager desire to meet with the leaders of Iran and other radical nations or others who claim that Muslims are morally outraged at America and so we are to blame for their terrorism.  The thing is that Christians express much of the same kind of moral outrage at Hollywood and it is often treated dismissively.

The examples could go on and on and include other glaring examples of differences in treatment depending on a persons’ religious beliefs, political views, race, “sexual orientation”, etc.  A reasonable person open to the truth can see the truth and should be outraged. 

It is important to be aware of the climate of double standards today when hearing the news, talking to a liberal friend/ family member, or other everyday activities.

To conclude, I would recommend the following books that provide further insight into this trend:

*”Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians,” by David Limbaugh and

*”Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” by Bernie Goldberg.

During the Clinton era, the concept of “hate crimes”, “hate speech”, “hate this” and “hate that” was coined or at least perfected.  It was used to provide extra demonization to those who targeted a person because of their race, creed, or even their sexual orientation (which is a choice by the way and an evil one, at that).  The idea is that targeting someone because of their “protected class” is more reprehensible than just committing a plain ol’ crime and therefore such a hateful action is deserving of greater punishment. I will endeavor to poke holes in this misguided logic.

During George W. Bush’s Administration, “hate crimes” haven’t been pushed because Bush isn’t nearly as misguided as Clinton nor has he had the political allies or supporters that were the “victims” of “hate” except true Christians and it seems politically correct to malign them at times.

However, it is curious that the concept of using “hate” has not gone away. Actually, it can be found on various blogging sites like blogger.dom which provides the free blogspot.com label for blogs. Blogger.com, in its “Content Policy” proudly proclaims that it favors freedom of expression but goes on to engage in a bit of doublespeak.  In its ”Blogger Content Policy” the following is noted:

“Blogger is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe Blogger increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.  We respect our users’ ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share.  It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression.” I would agree with that last sentence.

That sounds fine, right? Now this is what comes next…..”In order to uphold these values (the double- speak now begins), we need to curb abuses that threaten (possible overstatement) our ability to provide this service and the freedom of expression it encourages. As a result, there are some boundaries on the type of content that can be hosted with Blogger.  The boundaries we’ve defined are those that both comply with legal requirements and that serve to enhance the service as a whole.

Then Blogger’s policy goes on to specifically address the “Content Boundaries” for Pornography and Obscenity, Hateful Content, Violent Content, Copyright, Private and Confidential Information, Impersonation, Unlawful Use of Services, and Spam, Malicious Codes and Viruses.

I will address specifically their policy on “Hateful Content”. That policy notes the following,” Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/ gender identity.”

The problems with such policies, in my experience, is:

WHAT IS DETERMINED TO BE HATE?

There have been rumblings recently about Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  Conservative talk radio hosts have claimed that his anti-American, anti-white, anti-government rhetoric is “hate speech.” Frankly, I don’t agree.  However, many of his statements have been outrageous, ridiculous and false in some cases, such as claiming that the U.S. Government planted the AIDS virus as a way to kill black people. His statements are covered by the 1st Amendment.  It should be noted however that liberals have tried to stifle conservative preachers who speak out against the sin of homosexuality or against Islam by calling it “hate speech”, so this is a bit of “equal time” as it were. 

The use of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” is a deceptive tool to stifle debate or criticism.  In actuality, what may be called “hate” or “hate speech” is actually nothing more than reasonable and constructive criticism, a statement of belief or opinion, or more unpleasant or offensive speech but the 1st Amendment was designed to cover such comments, by the way.

Furthermore, in some cases, calling homosexuality a sin or an a abomination is the truth. The Bible says in I Corinthians 13 that “love rejoices in the truth”. So calling such statements “hate speech” is directly at odds with the truth. Such statements are actually quite loving.

HOW IS THE POLICY OF “HATE SPEECH” OR A “HATE CRIME” APPLIED?

The short answer is, that in my experience and opinion, the concept of “hate” is often not applied fairly or uniformly.

The whole concept of hate or hate speech is actually quite Orwellian.  The idea is notoriously unjust and a violation of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause to the Constitution.

The following are some examples of how the concept of “hate”, “hate speech”, and “hate crimes” have been applied to show the danger to liberty and justice and truth and the American Way:

*The case of Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a case in point. Conservatives have had a field day, routinely labeling some of Wright’s comments as “hate speech.” On the other hand, liberals have reported the matter with a noticeable difference. It is often reported with indifference or more objectively. Liberals may even “poo-poo” the idea of “hate speech”, presumably because Wright is a liberal Democrat’s preacher.

*Then there is the Clinton Administration (not the hoped for Hillary one but the Bill Clinton variety). The concept of hate crimes seemed to flower under the Clinton Administration.  Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno seemed to relish using it to go after anyone opposed to the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, as well as traditional minority groups like African-Americans and women in some cases.  The common denominator seemed to be that the “offended” groups also tended to be part of the Democratic political base. 

*I also recall a young man in Park County, MT was charged with a hate crime for putting a “CUT” bumper sticker on or near the Church Universal and Triumphant property (a cult) in the 1990s. Actually, it said “CUT” in large letter but in small letters between the large “CUT” letters it said something to the effect of, “No, I am not a member of ….”  This required extra punishment because “hate” was obviously (I say facetiously) the young man’s overriding motivation. It couldn’t have been a good-natured joke perhaps? Now if the matter would have involved a evangelical church the whole matter would likely have been laughed off.

*On the other hand, if you recall, there was a major shooting during the Clinton era that featured a crazed gunman entering a Baptist Church and killing a number of worshippers during a service. This, in Janet Reno’s view didn’t necessitate a hate crime designation. This obviously shows a double standard to any objective viewer of the events.

*As a late addition to this posting, according to a Fox News report (5/12/2008), an administrator at the University of Toledo was fired because she courageously noted that her racial status does not change but sexual orientation can. The University of Toledo’s action is a gross example of injustice.    

So next time you hear “hate” anything mentioned, please consider what it might mean to your liberty.

The economic news so far this year hasn’t been very good.  I would maintain that compared to the Great Depression or later recessions like the 1973-1974 slowdown this is pretty mild.  I mean we still don’t have negative growth reported yet.

Nonetheless, there is the sub-prime mortgage housing crisis and the resultant increase in foreclosures. Add to that the Bear Sterns bailout and the credit crisis resulting largely from banks having to write-down loans from sub-prime mortgages.  Also added to the mix has been a major run-up in commodity prices in everything from gold and silver to oil and to food items like wheat and corn. 

Liberal Democrats and some Republicans are screaming about the allegedly terrible state of the economy.  It is curious when George W. Bush was about to take office in 2001 he warned about a recession but was shouted down by the Clinton Administration and the liberal media for being negative and talking down the economy.  Oh well, double standards are aplenty aren’t they.

I would maintain that liberal policies related to the environment are at least a contributing factor to our current slowdown.

Why? The short answer is that extremist liberal, “earth-loving” policies are stifling commodity development.  Most notably in oil, gas and coal but also in food crops.  This is causing prices to spike, putting the brakes on economic activity in some cases. Liberals have used the environment as a reason to stifle development for awhile but now the new cult-like mantra of “global warming” or “climate change” is being used with near religious zeal as a further way to knock the knees out from under sound energy development. As of the end of March one radio talk show host, Michael Savage, said well-known conservatives like Newt Gingrich and televangelist Pat Robertson of all people are scheduled to appear in Al Gore’s upcoming “climate change” propaganda campaign.

This posting is limited and I won’t take the time to prove all my arguments. However, I will touch briefly on them just to trigger greater skepticism of the “global warming hoax”. Please free to read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Christopher C. Horner in my Recommended Reading page.  I would offer the following thoughts, arguments and information which caused me to be skeptical of the “global warming hoax” and its misguided proponents:

1) It isn’t proven - There have been UN scientific conferences (IPCC) but I would maintain that they were about making politically-motivated claims rather than using true objective, fact-based scientific inquiry.  I maintain it is science by popular vote not the scientific method. Just because someone claims to be a scientist or even if they are one, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are making scientifically sound conclusions.  As liberals say about many of the Bible’s miracles, I would say “there is no evidence for it”, especially with regard to human-caused global warming.

2) ”Global warming” appears to be based on extrapolations of data that may or may not continue into the future.  For example, stock market technical analysts use similar extrapolations to estimate future activity but it is far from a certainty. 

3) I would maintain that if “global warming” or “climate change” is such a certainty, then why can’t weather forecasts be absolutely perfect and without a hint of uncertainty down to the exact temperature, the exact probability of precipitation, the exact wind speed, etc.  The answer is meteorologists can not be that exact for 2 weeks in the future, or 10 days, 5 days or even 24 hours.  Can they tell us exactly where a tornado will touch down?  No, they can’t. Why then should we totally distort our economy and take draconian measures for estimates of what the climate might be like in 50 or 100 years. I haven’t gotten an acceptable answer to that basic question. On the contrary, I often get glares and scowls but not a lot of answers.

4) What caused me to really increase my skeptical red flag was when I heard “global warming” zealots rename their crusade “climate change” if there happened to be an unusual cold spell.  For example, this winter (2007-2008) has reportedly been quite cold compared to the average. In other words, they’ve covered all their bases by using the “climate change” term.  Their complete lack of tolerance is also unscientific. The zealots, like Al Gore, seem unwillingly to even consider opponent arguments.

5) Then there is the policy objection. There are a number of hoops that have to be jumped through before ”global warming” should justify policy action. First, is there global warming? If there is, then is it human caused? In my view global warming may be happening but the human caused question is definitely debatable. Then, if it is human caused the next question is what should be do about it. Given the fact that the most onerous pollution is in developing nations like China and India, it would seem rational to address the problem there with proven pollution control technology currently being used in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere. It is basic. However, the policy action question is where the liberal rationalization and anti-capitalist and anti-American rhetoric reaches a fever pitch. Outside Magazine ( March 2008 issue, pg. 56, “It’s Not Getting Any Colder” article) argues for a “…kind of a global Marshall Plan…” to save the third World after we here in the US have wrecked our economy for global warming. Why not do the “new kind of Marshall Plan” now with the technology that is available.  That is where the true motivation for the “climate change” zealots is manifested.  I maintain that they may really be about big government socialism, not protecting the environment

6) To continue my prior thought from #5…..If global warming is human caused why focus on 1st world developed economies where frankly pollution is not nearly as problematical especially in light of China where the world’s best marathoner reportedly won’t participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics because the pollution is so bad.  Again, that tells me the global warming zealots aren’t serious about addressing the “problem”.

7) Frankly, is a little global warming even that bad? Most reports I have read show that global cold spells have had a more disastrous effect on the world than warm spells.

Finally, it is amusing to me that the same “progressive” secular types who routinely claim we need more for education (actually in public education it may be more like indoctrination at least on the topic of global warming) are using the same “witch hunt” tactics employed by the Catholic Church with Galileo or at the Salem Witch Hunts in dealing with “global warming” skeptics. These “progressives” ridicule and attempt to marginalize global warming skeptics by comparing them to “flat earth” people, those that believed in a staged moon landing, or to those believing that babies come from the stork. Actually, skeptics are more like Galileo or Christopher Columbus’s effort to prove that the earth was round in the face of a mindless, majority hostility.  In the days after the UN IPCC conference the press routinely proclaimed that the global warming debate was over and now was the time for solutions. 

Now a few issues where the quite wacky concerns about the environment in general and global warming in particular are hurting the economy:  

*Attempts to drill in the ANWR (the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) are rationalized away by saying …it won’t help fast enough (but the liberal alternative energy pet projects for wind and solar may take much longer, if at all), or we need to stop being “junkies” to oil (deceit), it’s a pristine area (Senator John McCain’s notion), or the argument that we need to protect the environment (even thought ANWR could be developed with a very small footprint).  I maintain that to some of these misguided fools it is almost considered sacrilege to drill in ANWR because these people are de facto pagans and they worship the earth. The same could be said for prohibited drilling efforts off shore in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere because environmentalists, not interested in solving the challenges, but stifling development have been successful in their silly cause.

*Ethanol is allegedly a “clean energy” alternative to oil, but is it? Actually, ethanol is a pretty inefficient way to get energy. You grow crops using tractors to harvest them (fossil fuel burning) and ethanol burns less efficiently than gasoline.  It may be nice for farmers but there are problems besides the intrinsic efficiency of ethanol itself. Increased ethanol production is subsidized by the government. Crops are grown at inflated prices. This has encouraged farmers to switch production from wheat, barley or whatever other crop to corn to take advantage of the windfall. This has caused other farm commodity prices to increase which hurts consumers, especially the poor, around the world. This distortion of supply and demand is due to this subsidy of ethanol. Again, actions have unintended consequences. Politicians, it seems, are often too arrogant or too interested in looking like the “good guys” to pay heed to common sense. 

*Then there is coal. Things like the carbon sequestration technology that is currently in vogue to stop coal from being released into the air may affect ground water stores instead. Again, it is pretty absurd to worry about coal-fired power plants in the USA and in other developed nations when in India and China it is sometimes necessary for people to wear masks because of pollution. Despite the rhetoric, India and China’s economies are growing like mad and they can start to address their pollution problems instead of being treated like victims. 

The bottom line, tell your Congressman, Senator and Presidential candidate that global warming is nonsense. Tell them you don’t want it used as a pretext to wreck our economy.

Blessings and curses. A bit of a controversial topic, especially the “curses” part in today’s secular, “human-centered” world.

The idea of saying ‘God Bless You” or “Have a Blessed Day” seems nice and harmless enough. However, the implication is that there is a Supreme Being who is actively involved in human affairs, an uncomfortable thought for some.  Furthermore, it implies that this Supreme Being is not only involved in human affairs but he rewards and punishes human beings for their behavior.  The latter necessary implication is what tends to rattle, or dare I say, infuriate some who are in rebellion toward God or just want their own way.

In this posting I will address one of the first areas where the concept of blessing and cursing was addressed in the Bible. The Bible has a lot to say on the topic but I will address specifically God’s promise that was given to Abraham, the “Father of Faith” to true believers in God.  After God made a personal promise to Abraham, He then made a promise to those who dealt with Abraham. In Genesis 12:3 KJV, the Bible declared God’s promise, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”  The whole verse is very positive. Since then mankind has been blessed. We are moving around in airplanes, cars, and ships instead of by donkey or on foot. We can talk by the internet, phone, fax or email instead of having to be in the same room or send a smoke signal or a foot message.  Many live in heated houses instead of having to make and keep a fire going. God has indeed blessed humanity.

You may ask, “OK, so that was Abraham, he’s dead.” True, but God is the God of the living, not the dead.  Abraham’s spirit is alive in heaven with God. Additionally, and more importantly, from a temporal perspective, is that God’s promise given to Abraham also applies to Israel and Jews everywhere, as well as to Christians through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and His resurrection from the dead.

Therefore, if a person treats a true believer poorly or excludes him or literally curses him then he himself will be cursed by God and if this person treats a true believer well (blesses him) he will be blessed.

On a national level, Nazi Germany put the Jews in concentration camps and tried to annihilate them. In return, I believe God punished Germany by having the nation divided for roughly 40 years after World War II and then also by having its capital, Berlin, divided by a wall for over 20 years.

On a personal level, I have had numerous people treat me quite poorly and with extreme hostility, from family members to a leader of a Christian denomination to a Roman Catholic nun, etc.  I have given up trying to get even with people because God does a much better job of avenging me. 

So how do blessings and curses manifest in people’s lives.

Blessings….Through simple happiness, through good health, etc. I have seen businesses get blessed, I’ve seen things happen that took less effort than should have been required like losing weight or getting in better physical shape.

I have also had many people treat me well and I’ve seen them get blessed with happiness manifested in a variety of ways including material prosperity, peace and joy. For example, even if a person is not the richest person in the world God can bless them through what Ecclesiastes 5:20 refers to as “gladness of heart” in the NIV version. They may have pleasure in hobbies or an uncanny sense of contentment while others with much more may be hounded by an inner emptiness or dread.  Sometimes, God can work that out positively by leading a person to a saving personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

And now curses…..People may get fatter, lose relationships, lose favor with people, financially have difficulty, have health problems, or lose their good looks. I mean we are talking the God of the universe here. The list makes you fear God. To those who think this is mean or Old Testament I would say “get over it”.  It’s in the Bible and a New Testament verse, II Timothy 3:16 NIV says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness….”

Personally, I have noticed people who have cursed me or treated me poorly, often without cause, get very sick, get a broken bone, have to retire because of illness, have to move away from me or their favorite house, lose financial blessing (lost tips, loss of a desirable job, having to do something you hate for a living, etc.), lose youthful vigor, get the flu, get pregnant out of wedlock, get hooked on illegal drugs, get cancer, etc.  However, having these things happen may not necessarily reflect a curse (see the book of Job) but I would suggest that often it does. 

Another way God can bring a curse on someone is by judging them with the same negative circumstances that the person they are cursing has had. Finally, the ultimate curse is being sent to hell (actually choosing to go there) because a person rejects God and the only path to salvation He has established (John 14:6), repenting of sin and trusting in Jesus Christ.

I would undoubtedly get an argument from some, and I have, but I have seen it happen too many times to not be able to see the underlying and fundamental reason behind the reason.  

I sometimes wonder in amazement when I quote Genesis 12:3 to an “attitudinally challenged” person. They often immediately and rightly conclude it as an insult (or a rebuke) because they may want to hate me without consequence.  I once had a Roman Catholic woman who believed in “karma”, by the way which is a non-Christian counterfeit of Genesis 12:3, get irritated at Genesis 12:3 but she didn’t have a problem believing in karma, which maintains a similar idea except that some “impersonal force” is dispensing the judgment.  It was sadly hypocritical.  

The lesson…watch how you treat people you think might not be worth treating right. The person might be a believer and furthermore he might be a believer who claims Abraham’s promise proactively on a daily basis. Finally, see Deuteronomy 28 for a more complete list of the blessings and curses God promised.

  

The Presidential election season is very interesting this time around. I have been focusing my attention on the GOP side because it is usually more interesting, more substantive, and because of my conservative values.

The Democratic race is interesting at times but there doesn’t seem to be a substantive difference between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  Sean Hannity, conservative talk show host and TV personality rightly noted there really isn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Hillary, Obama, and John Edwards.  Although as of late, Obama and the Clintons have been trading swipes, sometimes of a personal nature. Substantively, Edwards often sounds more militant with his class warfare rhetoric.  What strikes me is that so many Democrats seem willing to use the word “collective” so freely.  That is a bit of a ”red flag” to me, excuse the pun, because the Communists were big on collective things as well, i.e. collective farms, collective ownership, collective thinking, etc. It seems many Democrats are becoming increasingly “freed-up” with communist/ socialist positions.

On the GOP side there seems to be some confusion and a more muddled race.  It makes it interesting for political junkies. I am struck that many talk show hosts were ganging up on Mike Huckabee.  Rush Limbaugh, for example, seemed to imply on his show (1/10/08) that Mitt Romney might get eliminated in favor of a candidate who claims to be conservative but really isn’t. As of this date (1/29/2008), it looks more like Romney’s money could be a decisive advantage, allowing Mitt to campaign aggressively in all or most of the upcoming primary states instead of having to focus on a few states like the other, more cash-strapped, candidates.

Granted I do have a few concerns about Huckabee myself.  He has raised taxes while Governor but he also has signed a no-tax pledge.  However, there seems to be a bias against him (anti-Christian perhaps) among talk show hosts like Rush, Mike Gallagher, Michael Savage, and less so by Sean Hannity.  Much of their criticism is distorted and/or not substantive. Yes Huckabee may have flip-flopped a few times but so has Romney on abortion.  Giuliani has adopted a more conservative tone but what does he mean when he says he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges? Is perceived electability the underlying concern about Huckabee among talk show hosts?

It seems both Sean and Rush have darling candidates. I would say Rush has been more heated in his displeasure with McCain and Huckabee.  It seemed in Rush’s eyes, Huckabee and McCain could also do nothing right but Romney, Rudy and Thompson could almost do nothing wrong. Sean Hannity’s bias was more reflected in his “cheerleading’ of his favorite candidates like Mitt Romney, Rudy, and Fred Thompson (until he dropped out after South Carolina).  In the fall of 2007, it seemed Sean’s radio show was virtually a commercial for Rudy.

On Rush’s radio show (1/29/08) he referred to a Republican critic of his, Carol Devine-Molin.  Rush’s tone seemed half-mocking and half-conciliatory. Molin, according to Rush, writing in American Daily claimed Rush was manipulating the GOP race (my contention as well) by exaggerating the negatives of McCain and Huckabee (especially Huckabee in my view) and glossing over the faults of Fred Thompson (that is until he dropped out), Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Molin said Limbaugh was acting like a “petulant child” leading a “tribe” of followers. 

Why do I say so? Throughout the fall of 2007 and before Huckabee’s rise in the polls and his win in Iowa, there didn’t seem to be a problem with Rudy, Romney, or Thompson’s more liberal positions on some issues either currently or in the past.  I even recall a few callers on Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s radio shows that were trying to, subtly or not so subtly, marginalize evangelical Christians because of concerns with the crop of Republican candidates at the time. Sean Hannity also took on Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family when Dobson indicated he might pursue a 3rd party because of the lack of true conservatives, especially in the social area, among the GOP.  Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh said on his show (1/24/08) that he might not vote for a “couple or maybe just one” Republican, meaning McCain and possibly Huckabee.

The talk show guys didn’t seem to have a problem with the liberal positions of other GOP candidates on social issues like abortion, gun rights, or gay marriage as long as they personally liked them and/or if they were strong on their “pet issues” like handling illegal immigration, keeping taxes low,  health care, staying focused on the war on terror / the war in Iraq, or fighting the concept of human-caused “global warming.”  They politely ignored social issues or rationalized them away. Rush Limbaugh basically said the President “can’t do too much about abortion anyway.” Actually the bully pulpit is a powerful weapon. 

Rush also responded to a caller who said evangelicals were supporting Huckabee because he would be a bulwark against the homosexual agenda. Frankly, that is a major issue of freedom, which in my view, is the basis of a conservative world view.  Rush said that adding “sexual orientation” to hate crimes legislation sponsored by Barney Frank was beat back.  That is true. However, I would add that the issue was beat back by Christian ministries like Focus on the Family, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the prayers/ phone calls of many Christians. I don’t recall even a peep about the matter by so-called conservative talk show hosts like Rush or Sean Hannity, at least until the issue was beat back.  

On 1/11/08 on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh tore into Governor Huckabee.  He seemed to imply pretty strongly that Huckabee’s supporters were whining when they claimed that the anti-Huckabee ads were “attack ads”. Rush added “these guys have been in politics a long time” and they should be able to take it.  On the other hand, earlier in the campaign (weeks or months earlier) a caller was whining that perhaps evangelicals were behind attacks against Gov. Romney’s Mormon religion. Rush sounded quite a bit different. In fairness, he did mildly say that it was politics but then he said such “attacks” were not appropriate based on how he was raised as an American. 

John McCain has largely been treated with disdain or politely ignored because of the McCain-Kennedy immigration (many would call it amnesty) bill or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill which was an attack on free speech.  After his win in New Hampshire, a 2nd place in Michigan, and a win in South Carolina he got harder to ignore, however.  After those wins, he has attracted more negative attention from the talk show hosts.   Rush Limbaugh seems to be concerned that a President McCain might marginalize conservatives. I think he may be right. It’s worth noting evangelical Christians may have similar concerns about McCain and Giuliani and perhaps Romney.  

Basically, I would summarize the races thus far as being more about style, image, and who is perceived to be the better agent of “change”, among the Democrats. Although the idea of “change” seems to be kind of a warm and fuzzy thing to a lot of Democrats. I think the history, organization, and tactics of the Clinton will likely prevail in the end.

On the GOP side, it is more about issues. It is about who is the most conservative. It may also be more about money. The definition of what is and isn’t a conservative is also coming into play. Basically, there are Republicans who tend to be either social conservatives, economic conservatives or defense conservatives.  Romney, on the 1/23/2007 edition of Hannity and Combs seemed to be trying to address all three.  I believe the one who is the best organized, most coherent and most likely most conservative on those 3 key areas would be best, although not necessarily who will win. Right now, my guess is Romney and McCain are the front runners but Huckabee might bounce back if he does well in other southern states. Unless Giuliani fares well in the Florida primary, it might be tough for him to continue.

    Welcome to Daniel O’Hara’s blog.  The content of this blog (including the name) will likely be a work-in-process.  Many might say it will evolve, but since I don’t believe in evolution, I will pass on putting it exactly that way.   

    Anyway, the Jubilee Group is a business and management consulting firm with a pretty politically incorrect mission.  This blog will try to cast an equally controversial, or contrarian if you will, slant on things. 

    It may address business topics like hiring new employees or handling the resistance of family members to a new venture.  Also management issues like conflict management and discrimination in the work place may be addressed.  But I also anticipate using this blog to “sound off” on other political, economic, social, spiritual and other issues of the day as well because, frankly I just want to, and also because such issues affect businesses (and organizations in general) and management.  I guess what I’m saying is, don’t be surprised to see “The Perils of Family Business” addressed one week, “The Global Warming Hoax and the Threat to Freedom” the following posting, and see “Why Mixing Business and Religion is Wise” addressed in still another.

    So, stay tuned.  It should be fun!

***NOTE - If you feel inspired,edified, and/or informed by this blog please feel free to let us know, and send a donation or financial token of appreciation to Daniel O’Hara at 2912 Grand Avenue, #181, Billings, Mt 59102.