I have not felt much like blogging lately with how busy and tired I have been and all that, but I just had to complain somewhere about how stupid Obama’s “Stimulus Plan” is.

But first, I would like to say how much I can’t stand all the fuss over Obama.  The amount of hero worship over this man absolutely galls me.  He’s just a man, not a very good one or a very smart one, but even if he were, he does not deserve to be worshiped.  I never have understood sycophants very well, one has to be a special kind of pathetic to be a sycophant, but the Obama crowd is a step beyond being mere sycophants.  They are idolators, worhipping a politician who has done nothing more than vote for every tax hike and planned parenting legislation.  Ah but he’s also black, and that makes him a hero.  Yes, they really did lead a likeness of Obama into Des Moines Iowa on a donkey while waiving palm branches and all that.  I have been asked on multiple occasions whether or not Obama is the Anti-Christ, and I must say he does have some very essential Anti-Christ-like qualities.  Hordes people like him for no reason and without thinking, and people worship him.  The only characteristic he lacks that the anti-Christ must have, is that he’s a blithering dolt and it has always been my view that the Anti-Christ must be intelligent.  At any rate, the liberal media has certainly been far less than objective.  All those articles “Obama takes his first step into the whitehouse”(or whatever) remind me of an overly exhuberant young mother doting over her first child.  I suppose it is too late for them to write about Obama’s first dump in the whitehouse.

Moving on, I came here to rant about how stupid his so called “stimulus plan” is.  First of all, if there was any lesson to be learned from the failures of the Bush administration, it should have been that too much government is a bad thing, and that we need less government not more.  So either the election was rigged, or not enough people learned the lesson.  Based on what I have read about the stimulus package so far, I have to conclude that either Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the country or he understands less about economics than my dog.  Most of the “tax-cuts” are not actually tax cuts, but checks given to people who don’t pay taxes.  How can you call something a tax-cut if people aren’t paying taxes in the first place?  Obama really has the LM in his pocket for sure for them to gussy it up that way.  But there is more to it than that, he’s also wants to pour more money into welfare and foodstamps, establish more beaurocracies, and increase the amount and duration of unemployment checks (more regulation of the private sector).  I fail to see how any of this will result in economic recovery.  Paying people for being out of work only makes it easier for them to stay out of work.  It will probably encourage people who are stuck in the cycle of poverty to have more children but it will certainly not end or reduce the unemployment rate.  The purpose of pumping more money into the economy is to stimulate spending, but whether it does any good or not depends on where the money goes.  Giving money to people who are irresponsible with money in the first place is probably only going to stimulate the booze and porn industries (for a little while longer) but only so long as it takes inflation to catch up with the increased spending.  If he were really serious about stimulating the economy, then he would work on reducing taxes to the people who have real spending power.  The government of India does not tax the country too much, and they have few social programs (other than programs aimed at reducing the birthrate).  The result is that the economic environment in India is highly conducive to new businesses and industries, and money goes a lot further over there than it does here.  Soaking the rich with tax hikes does not make for a stronger economy, it merely encourages them to invest their money in places where the government cannot get it, like overseas.  Aside from that, it also punishes people for hard work and having initiative.  This laughable “stimulus package” is at best a short sighted attempt to garner more votes for the Democratic party, including a 2nd term for the Moron in Chief.  But I think that it is also an attempt at social engineering, with the goal of creating a permanent underclass of people dependent on the government.  At any rate, I have written a song for all the Obama supporters that they can sing when they get together.  Now, this song is not entirely original mind you, but neither was the triumphal entry on the donkey.  Ready?  Here it goes:

Obama loves me this I know, for the Media tells me so,
all your money to him belongs, because you are weak but government is strong…

I have to admit that I was quite surprised that The People’s Republic of California elected to ban “gay marriage.”  While I realize that this is old news, it just further illustrates how opposed people are to the concept of redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships.  Other states have also banned it, and during the last 2004 election it was also banned at the Federal level.  Even though the majority of people probably voted YES for Obama, they still voted NO to “gay marriage.”  I put “gay marriage” in quotations because regardless of what legislation is passed, it will never be real actual marriage, but more on that later.  The point I wish to make, is that Obama stated that he would try to be everybody’s president, even the people who did not vote for him (Chairman Mao used similar rhetoric).  Of course I know that not to be true since the positions he espouses are completely opposed to mine, but the point is, most of the country is obviously opposed to redifining marriage, will Obama try to redefine marriage?  If so, then he will be blatantly going agains the will of most of the people in the country, so he will not be representing their interests and he will be a conspicuous hypocrite.  Of course, the liberal media may still succeed in duping enough people into thinking he cares about their needs and has their interests in mind.  Time will tell. 

I have the overwhelming sensation that this election was essentially thrown.  First of all, the Republicans have been acting too much like the Democrats in their social policies lately.  Not so much the Democrats of the day but the Democrats of LBJ’s time.  Increased spending on war and social programs without any increase in revenue.  Of course, I do not approve of increases in taxes, but decreases in spending would be much appreciated.  Picking McCain for the presidential ticket was a huge mistake.  The man is not a true conservative and he is woefully incompetent.  As it was, whoever the Republicans decided to field was going to have it tough because from the onset they would already be weighed down by years of detritus from the liberal media.  Not only would they have to deal with the media, but they would also have had the difficult position of running against a black president, which attracted a large swath of people from all across the political spectrum simply because of the novelty of it.  McCain did awful in the debates, either because he was deliberately trying to throw the election, or because his mind is slow.  Either way, we still lose, and he was still a poor choice.  He did awful in the debates, my 16 year old sister could have done better.  I am not saying that Obama did well in the debates either, but the fact is that McCain did not produce counter-arguments to many of Obama’s positions.  To the average person who does not understand the issues the debates are crucial.  It is crucial that one candidate appear stronger than the other.  The average person is motivated to vote by extrinsic factors, such as peer pressure and the media, so when it comes to a contest of one dudmuffin vs. another they are going to go for whichever one is trumped up more brightly, or whichever one ‘glitters’ more.  In this case I am going to have to say that Obama won the glitter contest. 

That having been said, Mccain’s closing speech was the exact opposite of what we need.  Now is not the time to give into the Democrats, it is time to start acting like conservatives.  The Republican party has already been sliding towards the left, IF they are smart they will correct the error of their ways and return to the right.  But if they follow Mccain’s failure speech, then we can expect the slide to the left to continue.  If they are going to act just like the Democrats then there is no point in having a seperate party.  What the Republican party needs to do is try their best to block all of the legislation in Congress to prevent or at least minimize the damage.  Of course the only problem is that if they do that then the liberal media (LM) will accuse them of doing nothing but blocking legislation, even though that was what the Democrats did in Congress most of the time when GW was in power.  And the LM will not use the term “legislation” they will probably refer to it as “efforts” or something which sounds less legal and more positive.  The Republican part will probably never consider this, but they really have nothing to lose.  By acting like true conservatives they might be able to do some good.  I understand that they are afraid of losing votes, but the danger in losing votes is that more liberals will get put in charge.  If the Republicans are just going to act like liberals then we have lost already.

I have been thinking about what to do now that the liberals have taken over.  It is going to be a while before the next election and in the meantime the liberals have the potential to cause some severe damage.  They may do some things which are irreversable.  It could be that the majority of people in the US are still conservative (if the anti-”gay marriage” legislation says anything), but many were duped into voting for Obama because they liked the image he projected rather than the policies.  Or it could be that the majority of people are actually liberals.  The essential question I am struggling with is, is this their country or ours?  If it is their country then there is no way we will ever have true conservatives in power again, and it might be time for us to leave the country, either through secession or emigration.  I personally have been thinking about going to either Israel or India.  Going to India would be the far easier of the two but Israel has much more religious significance for me.  I am going to be giving it some serious thought. 

It looks like Obama won, and so far it looks like we also have a Democrat majority in congress.  If I take the results of the election literally, then I am forced to conclude that the majority of people in the US are even more foolish or ignorant than I previously thought.  And my faith in humanity goes way down…  It could be that the election was rigged, after all, the software certainly exists to rig an election, but it could also be that the majority of people really wanted Obama.

Assuming Obama won Legitimately…

It is very dissapointing but not suprising, considering how the liberal media was campaigning so hard for him.  Obama was above scrutiny, he was portrayed as being godlike, even though he really never did anything worthy of note.  Except for perhaps forging his birth certificate, more on that soon.  The liberal media never publicized his blunder where he admits to being Islamic in an interview with George Stephanapolous (spelling?).  Regardless of whether this blunder was deliberate or accidental, the fact of the matter is if a Republican candidate had done something like that it would have been all over the news for days.  The fact is about 70% of people in the US prefer to delegate their thinking process to others, and with all the liberal media and entertainment industries pushing for Obama it is hardly surprising that he won.  In addition, Obama had a lot more money to spend on his campaign, probably from friends like Muammar Ghadaffi.  Speaking of which, while endorsing Obama, Muammar Ghadaffi referred to him as a Moslem brother and an African brother.  Also, he probably won because he’s black, and people think that makes him special. 

The good news…

The good news is now that the liberals have for the most part taken over our country, perhaps I will not have to listen to any more of the obnoxious ignorant pathetic estrogen filled maudlin sissy whining that my ears and eyes have been nearly continually bombarded with.  Maybe they will finally stop their whiny emasculated bitching for a while and give my ears a rest.  Also, I now have more of a cause.  Finally, Biden stated that if Obama won there would be a huge crisis, perhaps he is correct, and perhaps conservatives will not take this lying down.  It may be that this is what we need to spark some secession movements and delegitimize the Federal Government.  Of course, neither of those may come to pass.

To Obama Voters…

First of all, I realize that not all of you are bad, some of you are just ignorant.  I would like to say that government is not the answer.  Obama’s answer to everything is to raise taxes and establish more bureaucracies.  I realize that most of you all are really into group think mentalities, but think about this… without personal freedom there can be no group freedom.  Without respecting the rights of individuals there can be no respect of group rights.  Groups are abstractions, individuals are concrete, beware of anyone who talks about granting freedoms to a specific group.  Those sorts of things are just rhetoric to cover up the fact that they are undermining personal freedom in some way or another.  Mention the group and the alleged benefits and I will tell you how it violates the personal freedom of someone.  There is an inverse relationship between personal freedom and the amount of responsibilities and actions which the government takes on.  The more the government does the less freedom we have as individuals.  Now for those of you who already realize this, I want to thank you for disrespecting me enough to violate my personal rights and liberties (sarcasm).

Finally…

On behalf of myself and other American Conservatives, I would like to apologize to Israel for the things Obama is going to do.  I am also a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I understand your needs.  I did not vote for Obama, and I do not support anything he is doing and will do.  Obama is not my president, he may be popular along the coastal states and among the media led ignoramusses, but I do not approve of him.  It is not even legal for him to be president since he was born in Kenya.  He is not a natural US citizen, according to his grandmother who claims she witnessed his birth in Kenya.  Which of course the liberal media completely glosses over.  Of course, far be it from the liberal media to speak out against their god.

Further reading on Obama’s illegitimacy:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_even_a_citizen__147.html

I realize that I have been rather pathetic lately about responding to people’s comments, and for that I apologize.  The reason is that I am involved in some critical and time consuming classes and internships, so I pretty much work, go to school, do school work, eat, shower, sleep, repeat.  I will eventually respond to everyone.  But, I just have to say a few words about the VP debate.

First of all, I deeply dislike the liberal media and their yellow journalism/mudslinging campaign.  Second, I like Palin better than McCain.  Normally I find it irritating when people born and raised in the US cannot speak with a standard American English accent, but Palin’s accent I actually rather enjoyed.   It’s somewhat amusing and simultaneously relaxing.  Now southern accents and black English/Ebonics accents I cannot stand.  Those accents cause me what could be described as mild mental anguish, not exactly physical pain but a sort of psychological pain, similar to how some people are bothered by nails scratching downwards on a chalboard.  But I digress.  It is fair to say that I dislike Biden.  He is a party switcher and an opportunist, it strikes me that he has no real position but I suspect he is smarter than Obama (not that it would take much) as Cheney is probably smarter than Bush.  It seems to me that the Democrats (in this case Obamiden) plan to “solve” everything by raising taxes and creating more bureaucrocies.  That is, at least, the only idea I have seen put forth thus far from them.

Biden said that he wants to enlarge the “middle class” rather than the “upper class,” and my brother quickly pointed out how foolish that was since economic growth is dependant upon social mobility, which includes more people moving into the upper class.  Locking people into mediocrity is certainly an element of socialism.  And then Biden slipped up and gave away his idea of what constitutes middle class when he referred to Home Depot employees as middle class.  Home Depot employees are not middle class, that is poverty.  Granted, a cashier at home depot has more net worth and material well being than one of the untouchables in India, but for the income range of the US such an occupation is on the lower end of the spectrum.  He then said that McCain/Palin did not deal with issues that affect those people and that they feel Obamiden would address their concerns better, such as job security, obtaining food, etc.  First of all, even if that is true, those people are not educated enough to have cogent well informed opinions.  Second, those are domestic and personal matters, it is not up to the government to feed, clothe, and ensure employment for people.  That is up to the people themselves.  The role of government is to protect the rights of people (not GIVE rights because rights do not come from governments or people, they either exist naturally or do not exist at all), which means that the government will protect you from Vikings, Mongols, or whoever might want to steal your belongings and/or rape your sister.  Once the government goes beyond those basic roles they have superceded their purpose and authority.  In order for the government to sustain people (whether they deserve to be sustained by the government is another issue) they must have revenue.  There are four ways in which a government can obtain revenue, 1) they can engage in commerce, at which point they become a business (getting close to anarcho-capitalism), 2) they can mint more money, which is problematic because it causes inflation, 3) they can pillage other countries for resources, which is morally unacceptable because it violates the rights of others, 4) they can pillage some of the citizens which they are supposed to be protecting (taxes), which is also morally unacceptable.  The Democrats wish to pillage the wealthier citizens because they are fewer in number and consequentially there will be less of an outcry.  However, that does not make it morally acceptable or justifiable in any regard because it is still theft.  The Democrats, with the help of the Liberal Media and leftist propagandists, try to portray wealthy people as Scrooge type characters who deserve to be exploited.  Even if that were the case, I do not see how it justifies theft.  Theft is theft.  And it is not the case, many wealthier and upper class people got that way because they worked hard.  Take my dad for example, his parents were poor or lower middle class.  After high school he started up a driveway pathing business (in Missouri), and eventually earned enough to purchase a steam roller, without a college education.  However, because he refused to become a subordinate of the unions they crashed his steam roller into an open basement, effectively shutting down his business.  Afterwards he went to college, and after graduating worked about 70 + hours a weak so that my mom could stay home with my brother and I.  Eventually he worked his way up and now makes more money in half a year than I have in my entire life.  The trade off is that his work never truly stops, they can reach him on his mobile devices at any time and he has to respond when they do.  Once I walked into my dad’s office and looked at some of the work he was doing on his PC, and it is safe to say that I understood absolutely none of it, and I have a college degree and an IQ of 135.  I know I cannot do what he does, and the fact of the matter is, some jobs are better paying than others because there are fewer people who can do them.  That is the way it has to be.  Now, I realize that not everyone can afford to go to college, and that most people incur debt when they do, HOWEVER, I do not see what gives the government the right to take 30% of his income, and redistribute it to some crack whore that keeps getting pregnant because she is either careless in her sexual activities and/or trying to get a larger welfare check by bringing more children into the world. 

Liberals and conservatives have a different views, for conservatives freedom is more important than security, for liberals it is the other way around.  But aside from that, liberals and conservatives have different ideas about what security is.  Conservatives feel secure when they can defend themselves, liberals feel secure when only government(s) has all the weapons.  Liberals feel secure when the government provides a safety net to keep them afloat when they lose their job.  Conservatives feel secure when they know the government will not show up to take their car or throw them out of their house for not paying taxes.  I digress… again.

Moving on, I would say that Democrats vs. Republicans is a matter of welfare vs. warfare, except that the Democrats are every bit as much warmongers as the Republicans, but at least the Republicans do not cut back on the size and/or funding for the military.  Bosnia was mentioned… a conflict I disapproved of completely.  I have tried to understand what strategic importance Bosnia had or has and I keep drawing a blank.  As far as I know it exports nothing, there are no major oil pipelines running through it, it has no power to threaten it’s neighbors.  I think intervention was thoroughly pointless.  And Biden was talking about doing something in Darfur.  Why?  I see liberals complaining about Darfur a lot, primarily for “humanitarian” reasons because people are being killed in that country.  Yet, I never once see any liberals crying out or calling for intervention on behalf of the Christians that are being slaughtered in Sudan.  Why?  Because it is thoroughly acceptable when Christians are being killed because Christians are a threat to world peace, well, they are at least an obstacle to world government and evolutionism.  But when Moslems are being killed it is time to intervene, because Moslems are peaceful and friendly, and they support womens rights and never attack anyone, and they are always grateful when people from the Dar al Harb intervene in their countries.  I say let them be, it’s time to start bringing the troops back home and instead of spending money on welfare and warfare, start spending it on space exploration or something useful and progressive, and when I say progressive I never mean liberal or leftist, I mean conducive to progress.

I watched the debate, and even though freetime is scarce for me, I wanted to post a few reflections before I go to bed.  First off, I have been fairly disappointed with the increasing liberalism of the Republican party.  The Democrats have also gone more to the left but voting for them is inconceivable, period.  At any rate, I am not excited about McCain, he has an annoying tendency to compromise with the Democrats, he is supposedly unwilling to raise taxes, which is good, but the man I wanted, Ron Paul, was going to abolish the IRS completely, which is better.  He also believes in the global warming myth, which is in a way playing into the hands of the UN.  Finally, I dislike the fact that he is divorced and remarried.  I tend to view divorce as perverse and wrong.  The only time divorce is legitimate is when adultury occurs, and even then it is still optional not required.  That having been said, I still find McCain preferential to Obama although I may vote 3rd party this time, a write in for Ron Paul perhaps.  And now my thoughts on the debate briefly:

Of course I am greatly disturbed by Obama, although I find him less disturbing than John Kerry.  The Democrats keep fielding extreme left of left candidates and then they wonder why they aren’t elected?  Now, if they simply fielded another candidate like Bill “oral sex is not sex” Clinton or Jimmy Carter then I would vote 3rd party for sure because such a candidate would not be much more liberal than McCain, who is a liberal Republicam a.k.a. Neo-con.  But Obama disturbs me on many levels, and I think it is essential to keep him out, especially considering the fact that Congress is mostly Democrat.  But I digress…

First of all, I had problems with the economic conversation.  Obama kept talking about cutting taxes to the “middle class” without specifying what the “middle class” was.  He needs to present an income range/define parameters.  The most money I ever made was about $27,000 a year, when I was living on my own being a fully productive member of society.  That was after the sharks at Washington DC took away a decent chunk of my paycheck, and then in addition I had to give them more money when tax time came around.  I was not by any reasonable means middle class, I was poor.  My roommate and I used to joke that we were upper lower class simply because we lived on the second floor of the apartment complex.  But what if the Democrats idea of “middle class” is actually an even lower income bracket than that?  The point is, I do not know, and even if it includes that range, then it would still be better to cut taxes across the board, and not just to the poor.  I not only had problems with the ideas but also the rhetoric, Obama kept saying that McCain wants to give money to the rich by lowering taxes to them.  Give money?  That has absolutely nothing to do with giving money, it is simply a matter of NOT TAKING (emphasis added).  Because it is their money in the first place, it is the government that takes the money, so it is not by any means a gift, but simply a matter of taking less.  If keeping the money you work for is a “gift” from the government then the only possible implication is that the government owns everything in the first place.  That sort of thinking is called communism, and it is an ideology practiced in the most oppressive countries in the world.  He also said that McCain wanted to cut taxes to the wealthy and the corporations who “never asked for it.”  This can only be an outright lie or a level of ignorance which I cannot fathom.  The “rich” may not have sent letters to Obama asking him to lower taxes, but that is an issue with the Republican constituency is concerned with.  That is why many of the wealthy vote Republican, they wish to keep their money, which is completely understandable.  It is also the reason why goods and services in Communist countries are typically so poor, because when governments confiscate the majority of people’s earnings it demotivates them and removes incentives for high performance. 

Now, as to the international politics.  Obama really wants to invade Pakistan.  I have to say that I agree with McCain on Pakistan, and I was fairly amused he said in regard to Obama’s comments “you don’t say that.”  I realize that Aljazeera really would like for Pakistan to get bombed, but since when do we make policy based on what Aljazeera wants?  Granted Obama never said the views of the Islamic world determined his foreign policy (as far as I know), but he sure is lined up well with the will of Aljazeera.  I do not know whether it is because of his Islamic upbringing, or because of all the support and money he received from Islamic countries, but I find it disturbing.  Especially considering how few allies the US has in the Islamic world (which generally hates the US and western culture, but then, I too hate western culture), and how easily those nations can be stirred to  extremism and terror.  Obama’s response to the “you don’t say that,” comment was that McCain and the Bush Administration gave N Korea the shaft and would not open dialogue with them.  The difference is, N Korea is an enemy state, not an ally. 

He also lied when he said that the Republicans expected to be viewed as liberators in Iraq and to find WMD’s while there, and that they turned out to be wrong.  First of all, the US soldiers were viewed as liberators, people did celebrate in the streets, statues of Saddam Hussein were pulled down, etc.  Unfortunately, there was also a great deal of looting and problems with people like Sadr (which seems to be settled now).  As to finding WMD’s, the building materials were certainly there: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

Moving on, in general I find a lot of the international politics disturbing, either way.  It gives me a sense of despair that the US is getting involved with so many countries.  It seems that Russia is being a problem again, and this time for the purpose of getting control over more oil.  Which is horrible considering how expensive gas prices already are.  I drive a Toyata, which gets good mileage, but it costs me more money to fill up my tank once than it does to buy a box set of any season of any Star Trek series.  Actually depending on where I shop, I could get 2 box sets for the price of one complete fill up for my gas tank.  Normally I would be pleased at the return to a bi-polar international system, because anything that mitigates the development of a world government is good, but I am concerned about the overextension of US troops, and the increasing gas prices.  This situation is a loss regardless of which one of them wins.

Also, while I suspect that the liberal media will blast McCain for mispronouncing Ahmadinejad, the fact is that they both mispronounced his name.  His name is not Amekdinajad, which was how they both ended up pronouncing it through the debate.  Although I think that most people struggle with his name, I used to struggle with it myself.  One thing everyone should learn in phoenetics is how to sound out new words.  Sometimes you have to break it up: Ah–ma–din–e–jad.  Take it at one syllable at a time if need be. 

As to Israel, I think McCain has the better policy.  I am a Christian conservative and I have Jewish blood in me so I must support Israel.  The Bible clearly dictates that that land belongs to the Jews, and that those who curse Israel will be cursed.  I wrote a detailed entry on this topic a few years ago and I can rehash it if possible.  Aside from that, the fact of the matter is that Jews have been a persecuted minority almost anywhere they have gone, and on a consistent basis.  The only place where they were welcomed was China during the middle ages.  After the rise of Islam Jews were forbidden from owning land, and persecuted a great deal more.  Many fled the middle east to Europe and Ethiopia, but also China.  The Chinese emperor looked on the Jews with favor, probably because they actually had quite a bit in common in terms of work ethic and the notion of meritocracy, so he gave them a province to live on.  Unfortunately when the Mongols invaded they killed off most of the Jews in China.  My point is, that the Jews need to have their own country, and it needs to be strong.  It needs to be a place where they can flee too and where they can be a majority so that they are not persecuted.  And I can think of no place more proper than their original homeland.  Am yisrael chai…

Well that seems to be all I have for now, I will endeavor to catch up with many of you all as time allows. 

Today I went to a Coptic Orthodox church instead of my usual church.  I went here: http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=73371

I have been aware of their existence at that location for some time, yet I was always reticent to go there for fear that their service might be in Coptic, and also, I generally dislike going to new churches unless they are large enough that I can go in and come out without being noticed.  However, I went this Sunday, and I will give my evaluation, but first, some background.  The Coptic Orthodox church is the official church of Egypt, it is at least as old as Catholocism perhaps older, as it existed prior to the split between the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church.  Prior to the invasion of Islam there were a few key religious centers for early Christianity, Rome and Byzantium were among them, but they also included Antioch (I believe but am not entirely certain) and Alexandria.  Alexandria is still the religious capital of Coptic Orthodoxy.  The language they speak is the descendant of classical Egyptian, in the same way that modern romance languages are dervided from Latin.  At some point in time the exchanged the use of heiroglyphs for a Greek(ish) text to be used for their lettering.  When the Moslems invaded most of Egypt was Coptic Orthodox, still speaking their native language and having their own religious capital in spite of being a part of the Byzantine/(Greek) Empire.  The Moslems laid a tax on all the Coptic believers who did not wish to convert to Islam, but in spite of this the majority of Egyptians remained Coptic (Egpytian) for some time.  Eventually the Moslems stepped up their persecution and most of the Egyptians converted to Islam.  Coptic Orthodox believers still continued to use their native language in conversational speech for hundreds of years, and in spite of the persecution.  Today they only use the Coptic language in liturgy, and their conversational speech is typically Arabic, or the native language of whatever country they find themselves in.  An unfortunate cultural loss.

I got to hear the Coptic language, and it sounded nothing at all like any other language I have heard before.  Nothing like Arabic (not in the least), and nothing like any black African languages I have heard.  I cannot adaquately describe it in the absence of a common basis for comparison, but it was quite fascinating.  The architecture and decor of the church looked rather Byzantine, and there was an elaborate wooden chair resembling a throne on the stage, which was never used.  I got to talk to one of the priests or fathers at the beginning, as he was going around dispersing some kind of scented smoke from a metal apparatus which he dangled and swung around.  I asked him if I could participate in communion and he said ‘no’ because I was not a part of the Orthodox Church.  Apparently the men were to sit on the left and the women on the right.  The women wore scarfs on their heads during the service, but they looked nothing like the Islamic hijab and were not required to wear them beyond the service, as they are not an opressive culture.  Eventually the air became saturated with the scented smoke so that it looked slightly foggy inside the sancturay.  A great many liturgical chants were conducted in Coptic, and some included the ringing of a triangular chime and symbols.  I rather enjoyed the music, so much so that I may purchase a CD if I can find one.  I believe that they bake the communion bread on location as a man wearing an apron entered at the begenning of the service and carried the bread to an alter.  A great many ceremonies and chants were performed about the altar.  The service was incredibly long running from about 8:30am-11:45am.  They read a great many Biblical passages, in English actually, and stories from their own history.  One was about a pious monk who meditated in the desert during the 1100′s AD.  He was so pious that there were none like him and when the Egyptian pope died they wished for this monk to replace him.  The monk refused so they dragged him by force and along the way he protested that he was unworthy.  They had a sermon about strength from the Holy Spirit, which lasted about 30 minutes, then more chanting and Bible reading in English.  The blessed the communion for about an hour, which was round flat bread, way better than anything served in AG churches, or Baptist or Protestant in general.  I know this because at the end of the service they passed out the excess to everyone, even myself. 

I saw one guy there with deep dents, somewhat like irregular jagged ruts on either side of his head.  I did not question him because I did not wish to appear rude, but I would surmise that he probably suffered those wounds from Moslems while still living in Egypt. 

As to their theology, I do not know exactly what they believe or the full extent to which it differs from myself.  I was able to glean that they venerate Mary which they call the Theotokos (spelling?), and they believe that she can act as an intercessor.  Or at least that was how one of their particular written statements read.  There was also a written statement which said she was an eternal virgin.  Obviously incorrect as she clearly produced brothers for Jesus, and only Jesus was to be born that way. 

All in all it was a good experience, except I felt that their services were too long.  I would reccomend condensing except that in order to do so they would have to alter traditions that are over 1000 years old and that could create structural problems.  One thing that struck me was how ornate the decor was.  I could actually tell I was in a church.  The decor, holy symbols, and pictures of saints and Biblical scenes makes it easier to have a reverent attitude, and to tell that you are in church.  Whereas most western and/or Protestant churches just look like regular buildings, classrooms or gymnasiums.  I can understand the logic of allocating money to mission work and charity, technology, or a larger facility, rather than decoration, but something has definitely been lost in the process.  Perhaps if enough people come to share my concern something will be done to rectify that.

It amazes me how anyone can think this guy is more articulate than Bush, when clearly he is not.  Even with the liberal media trying hard to cover up the facts, one need only watch a clip of him speaking:

I am still convinced that Obama comes from an Islamic background.  In spite of attempts to cover up his Islamic past, interviews with his former peers and friends from Indonesia have managed to expose him: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74635

If he is a Moslem, he certainly cannot be an orthodox Moslem as his pro-abortion position tends to go against the traditional Islamic views in regards to that, and his association with the Democrats indicates that he could believe in evolution.  It may be that he actually believes in nothing and just says whatever his campaign managers tell him to say.  At any rate, they really ought to keep him on a shorter leash if they seriously expect him to impress anyone who is not already a sychofant. 

I watched the last two days of the Republican Convention (perhaps it only went for two days) in order to hear the Palin and McCain speeches.  All in all I thought they did a rather good job, even though some of the statements were clearly just rhetoric.  The elements which I found most agreeable were the statements about “government standing with you instead of in front of you” and the downsizing of government and lowering of taxes.  Although my position goes a bit further to the right than that.  My position being that the IRS should be abolished along with the income tax and that governmnet is unnecessary.  At any rate, I do not wish to offer an extensive critique of their speeches at this time.  What I wish to speak on is the presence and actions of liberals at the Republican convention.

I noticed that quite a few liberals were escorted from the premises for being disruptive.  Typically what was shown on TV was their holding up some kind of sign or banner and being taken out of the convention.  On one occasion I saw someone take a sign away from a liberal and scrunch it up and throw it down.  An action which I consider to be laudible.  As to whether or not they were yelling, I am not certain.  It looked like some of them may have been but since the cameras were so far away I could not hear it.  It may be that the loud “USA” mantras by the audience were intended to drown out the shouting of the liberals.  Unfortunately I missed the Democratic convention, but at the danger of seeming presumptuous, I am going to hazard the guess that conservatives did not enter their convention for disruptive purposes.  I venture such a guess because I know that liberals have staged large protests or marches outside of Republican meetings and conventions, which have sometimes required intervention by the police.  Perhaps they felt the need to infiltrate and disrupt the Republican convention in order to draw attention to themselves.  It is difficult to imagine that they would be foolish enough to suppose that anyone in the convention would wish to hear what they have to say.  If their goal is simply to appear on TV then quite a few of them succeeded, if the goal was to garner sympathy for their beliefs or “cause” then they have succeeded in acheiving the exact opposite.  Another item which I noticed was that they held up two fingers on the way out.  I am uncertain as to the meaning of that gesture.  My experiences with people raising two fingers like that occured largely in middle school, when one would raise two fingers and place them behind the head of another for school pictures.  In those cases they were intended to represent rabbit ears I believe.  In the case of liberals being removed from the convention I am less certain.  While I admit that my knowledge of western pop culture is rather limited as compared with a normal person, I have heard it said that the raising of two fingers in such a way represents victory or peace.  I am not certain what victory is being one other than perhaps appearing on TV, and they are certainly not conducing themselves in a peaceful fashion, so I must remain baffled for the time being. 

I consider their actions to be rude and uncivilized, and I find it disappointing how they are against the other side even being able to express their views.  This brings to mind another incident.  During the last presidential election I was a student at GSU working on my first degree, and for those who do not know, GSU is in the center of metro Atlanta.  Near the 5 Points subway station liberals assembled quite often to stage disruptive demonstrations.  They would hold up signs that said “Honk if you hate Bush,” and people did which was irritating, and anti-Israel signs which compared Jews to Nazis and such.  An absurd comparison, and offensive to individuals such as myself who come from at least a partially Jewish heritage.  At any rate, as irritating and foolish as I found them, I left them alone because the Constitution grants freedom of assembly and I am a strong believer in free speech.  Not only did I leave them alone but so did everyone else.  Eventually conservatives staged their own demonstration at the intersection once there was a lull in the activity of liberals.  The conservatives did not encourage people to honk or be loud and disruptive in any other way, yet they were harassed almost non-stop by liberals passing by on the sidewalk.  It seems that many liberals are in favor of freedom of expression only when it favors them.  I noticed that the street “debates” quickly degenerated into yelling contests.  At any rate, I decided to interject so I engaged one of the liberals who was yelling about how bad Bush was for sending the soldiers to Iraq and that the soldiers hated Bush.  This person proceeded to yell at me in such a way as to preclude the possibility of her hearing what I have to say unless I yelled louder than she did and interrupted her contiguous mantra.  Since I am not a person who yells, I simply waited for her to calm down and cease yelling, and upon doing so I informed her that the military is one of the largest support bases for Bush, and in fact historically the military has typically supported Republican candidates.  She asked me where I received my statistic and I told her that I saw the recent statistic on an online news article dealing with the issue of whether or not the military would support Bush.  She said that anyone can put anything on the internet, so I told her that my source was from a professional news outlet and not someone’s personal page.  She then told me that she had friends in the military that hated Bush so I told her that I had friends in the military that liked Bush (which was true in my case).  Next she held up a cell phone and told me she had friends in the military and could call them right now and have them tell me how much they hated Bush, so I told her to do so and that I would be interested in hearing what they had to say.  She looked down at her cell phone and pressed two or three buttons and then walked away from me without looking back even once, and proceeded to yell at one of the conservative demonstrators.  I considered it a small victory and left.  But I would like to end this entry with an open ended question:  Why do so many liberals feel the need to act that way?

            This entry will detail my responses to the alleged Biblical contradictions posed to me by Easalien, as requested.  While it is addressed specifically to him, I believe that others will find it useful as well.  That having been said, I do not know whether or not you will find my explanations satisfactory but they satisfy me.

 

1.) Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20). Neither happened.

 

            Actually there is some evidence for this prophecy.  The event is mentioned in the Nebuchadnezzar Inscription which can be found in the British Museum, “In the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the country of Babylon, he went to Egypt [Misr] to make war. Amasis, king of Egypt, collected [his army], and marched and spread abroad.”  It is not surprising that no record can be found of this in Egyptian historical archives as ancient kings often omitted facts which they considered to be unpalatable.  Ezekiel also says, “It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.” (Ezekiel 29:15)  About 40 years passed between the attack by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt and the conquests and liberation by Cyrus the Great.  Afterwards Egypt existed as in a weakened state, no longer a major international contender.  Egypt was passed from the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans, and finally to the Moslems.  Today most of the people in Egypt are Arabic speaking Moslems.  The true heirs to Egyptian culture are a relatively small minority known as Coptics or Copts.  They speak a language which is the descendant from classical Egyptian but they use a Greek text.  Lately the trend among them has been to speak Arabic and Coptic is mainly used for liturgical purposes. 
Of course, one position is that this event has yet to occur, in which case the prophecy may be for some future time.

 

2.) Ezekiel predicts that the island of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and “made a bare rock” which will “never be rebuilt”(Ezekiel 26:1,7-14,32). However, Tyre was eventually destroyed by Alexander the Great. Despite the prophet, the city of Tyre was eventually rebuilt as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3) and still exists to this day. (see Tyre, Lebanon)

 

          It is true that Tyre was utterly destroyed by Alexander, but all the Babylonians had to do according to the prophect was break down the towers and damage some property.  At any rate, there is no portion of the prophecy which states that Tyre can never be rebuilt, although the most developed portion of the modern city of Tyre exists on the causeway that Alexander built to take the island.  Originally the city existed as a coastal settlement and an Island, most of which seems to be farmland today.  When the Babylonians attacked many fled to the island.  

 

3.) Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies(Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to II Chronicles, Syria and Pekah did conquer Judah(II Chronicles 28:1, 5-6).

 

          In this case it would have been prudent to read both chapters in their entirety, the alliance between Ephraim and Syria did indeed sack the country side and take captives but they never took Jerusalem and Ahaz himself was spared. 

 

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syriaand Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

 

–Isaiah 7:1

 

            Actually that would be down according to our orientation, but the point is that they had to cross some territory to get to Jerusalem and they were ransacking as they went, which is why 2 Chronicles refers to the taking of captives, all of which were soon released.  Isaiah does not state that Ahaz would be unharmed by his enemies, but simply that their plan to overthrown him and replace him with another king will not succeed (Isaiah 7:6-7).  2 Chronicles 28 talks a bit more about the ransacking but does not mention the attack on Jerusalem.  It is written from a different perspective.  After the Syrians and Israelites leave then Judah is attacked by the Edomites and the Philistines and a tribute is paid to the Assyrians.  For better or worse, Ahaz is never deposed, and in fact he dies and is buried in Jerusalem:

 

And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD God of his fathers.

Now the rest of his acts and of all his ways, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

–2 Chronicles 28:25-27.

4.) Micah predicts the destruction of Jerusalem(Micah 3:12) (which at the time was about to be invaded by Sennacherib and seemed inevitable) blaming the destruction on the corruption of the priesthood of Judah. A century later Jeremiah quotes Micah and tries to excuse the failed prophecy by saying that “the Lord changed his mind” about that destruction(Jeremiah 26:18-19).

            Not exactly, to begin with, the prophecy of Micah does mention that Jerusalem will be sacked but it makes no mention of who the aggressor will be.  There is no prophecy stating that the Assyrians were to sack Judah.  The Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom (Israel), but were unable to take Jerusalem.  They attacked Judah in the time of Hezekiah, who was a righteous king, and were unsuccessful.  Those events are described in 2 Kings 18-19. 

For I will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

–2 Kings 19:34-35.

            Ironically, Hezekiah sewed the seeds which would lead to the Babylonian invasion and sack of Jerusalem.  In the next chapter Hezekiah gets sick and makes his miraculous recovery, after which he receives a diplomatic envoy from Babylon and gives them a full tour of the facilities and the riches of Jerusalem. 

And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.

And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD.

Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

–2 Kings 20:15-17.

            Jeremiah had the unpleasant task of being the bearer of bad news.  He was an unpopular prophet and he had to contend with false prophets, and a hostile administration.  In Jeremiah 26 they were debating whether or not to execute Jeremiah.  Jeremiah informed them repeatedly that the destruction of Jerusalem was near, unless they repent and change their ways:

Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

–Jeremiah 26:13.

            However, he also stated that in addition to repentance and reformation they must also accept Babylonian rule.  For example:

And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:

For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish.

But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the LORD; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.

–Jeremiah 27:9-11.

            The statement which I believe led you to conclude that the prophecy of the sacking of Jerusalem was supposed to be carried out by the Assyrians was made by some of the elders of Jerusalem to discourage the administration from killing Jeremiah:

Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.

Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls.

–Jeremiah 26:18-19.

            It is true that those people made those statements, but it does not follow that those statements were true.  There have been a few incidences where God withheld his wrath, but in this case the more logical conclusion is that the analysis produced by the elders in regards to the Micah prophecy was incorrect, as Micah made no mention of the Assyrians in his prophecy yet the events he described did occur.  Those same elders probably came to a different conclusion after the sack of Jerusalem.

5.) Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace(2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was killed at Megiddo in a battle with Egyptian forces (2 Chron. 35:20-24). [9]

            The issue here was that the priest found a book of the law in the temple which had been lost and/or forgotten, which prophesied destruction and probably exile for the nation should they disobey the law.  Since they had been neglecting the law they were understandably concerned.  Josiah was concerned that he would live to see the fate described in that book, and the prophetess assured him that he would not.  While he died from battle wounds from fighting with the Egyptians (which may not seem like a peaceful end for him personally), the point of Hulda’s prophecy was that the destruction would not occur in his lifetime, and Israel would still be in a state of peace at the time of his death, which it was.

            One aspect of prophecy and promises from God in general, is that they tend to be conditional and can frequently be negated by rebellion.  Disobedience to God and rebellion against him can lead to at least a partial unfulfillment of God’s promises.  For example, the NT tells me that if I believe that Jesus rose died for my sins, rose from the grave, and accept him as Lord I can be saved and do not have to go to hell (Romans 10:8-13), however, if I purposefully disregard God and behave in an evil fashion on purpose then I will be headed to hell once more (Romans 6).  It is not a matter of God breaking his promise, but a matter of the person walking out of the agreement or covenant.  In the case Josiah, he rebelled against God:

After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.

But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.

Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.

–2 Chronicles 34:20-22.

            The Egyptians were just passing through, they wished to fight with the Babylonians in order to preserve the balance of power and their purpose was not to engage in conflict with Judah.  Necho was on an urgent mission which could afford no delays, and Josiah interfered with him.  It is understandable that Josiah would wish for the Assyrians to be defeated, as they were one of the most brutal conquerors the world has ever known, however, had Necho been able to succeed in his mission (which was clearly time sensitive), the destruction of Jerusalem may have been averted or delayed as a preservation of the balance of power might have kept the Babylonians from destroying Jerusalem, at least for a while longer.  Josiah was warned that Necho was on a mission from God and that if he interfered it could be the death of him, yet he disobeyed God and interfered.  He was warnednot to interfere, and he did, so he faced the consequences.

 

6.) Amos 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah’s sons will die by the sword, but according to 2 Chron. 26:1,21, Amaziah’s son Uzziah died of leprosy.

 

            In this case the references you have listed involve two different people.  There was no such prophecy pertaining to the sons of Amaziah king of Judah.  The prophecy in Amos 7:17 refers to a different Amaziah.  If you read Amos 7:10-17 you will realize that the Amaziah referred to there is one of the priests of Beth-el in the northern kingdom (Israel/Samaria/Ephriam).  He is not the king or even a king, he was part of that order of false priests established by Jeroboam when Israel split into two separate countries after the death or Solomon.  Jereboam set up a false priesthood in the northern kingdom in order to create a new religious center so that the people would not go down to Jerusalem to sacrifice and worship.

Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is not able to bear all his words.

For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land.

Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there:

But prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court.

Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:

And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.

Now therefore hear thou the word of the LORD: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac.

Therefore thus saith the LORD; Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land.

–Amos 7:10-17.