When Is It Our Turn?

Somebody should have told me that I was betraying my people in 1984 when I voted for Reagan/Bush instead of for Mondale/Ferraro. How could I betray my Italian roots? The only Italian-American ever to grace a major party ticket and I missed my opportunity to vote purely based on ethnicity. What was I thinking? How dare I vote on the issues!

I guess I should support Nancy Pelosi too.

Life would be so easy of we all just voted for the people who looked the most like us.

Forgive me, Rudy, I supported Duncan Hunter in the primaries!

Into the 1980s, Italian was the third most spoken language in the US (behind English and Spanish). Italian-Americans have succeeded in business, sports, music, art, academia and literature. Enrico Fermi won the Nobel Prize for Physics and was instrumental in the Manhattan Project... yet no Italian-American has come close to the White House.

It's a conspiracy, I say!

Dumbfounded by the Swimming Community

Mark Spitz is the Babe Ruth of swimming. But in 2008 he is being shown great disrespect by the sport he raised. He was not invited to Beijing to watch Michael Phelps attempt to break one the greatest records in sports history, let alone in swimming history. The American Olympic Committee told him that if he wanted to go, it'd be on his own tab. Disgraceful.

[F]ormer Michigan head coach Jon Urbanchek, a U.S. assistant, told the Baltimore Sun of Spitz: "His time is gone. I'm sure he can afford a ticket if he wants to be here. It would have been nice for him to be here and witness it. I really feel he contributed a lot to swimming. But it's time to turn the reins over to somebody else. You've got to move on with life. Get a life after swimming." - Detroit Free Press

"His time is gone"?? A record-holder's time is gone? Imagine telling Hank Aaron or Gordie Howe "your time is gone"! Even as their records were passed, they didn't pass with them. They became immortal sports figures. As I write, Spitz is STILL the greatest swimmer in Olympic history and will always be one of the greatest no matter what Phelps accomplishes.

As a HUGE baseball fan, having the swimming community show such disrespect towards one its giants (its ONLY giant?) just does not compute. Baseball (although sometimes mismanaged in the Selig era) honors every past performer it get its hands on (well, except for Pete Rose, of course).

When Rose broke Stan Musial's NL hit mark, it was ubercool to see Stan the Man at the ballpark. As a Phillies fan, I'd show up at a minor league game if Dickie Noles was planning on making an appearance! I once crashed a Little League day clinic because Jimmy Wynn was there.

As one who likes parts of the Olympics, I would have LOVED to have seen Mark Spitz on hand. I betcha (sorry, Pete), I just betcha the ChiComs didn't want him there for some reason. I haven't figured out the connection just yet, but I wouldn't put anything past them.

This is What the Founders Feared

I was quite shocked to see the support for the Catholic Church telling its adherents how to vote at Hotair.com. I'm not shocked that the CC is telling them thusly, but I would have hoped that such a thing would stir the conservative Constitutionalist's soul. Despite Ed Morrissey's attempt at rewriting Catholic history and the nuance involved in the comment that the church's refusing communion to those who don't obey the commands of pope and bishop ("submit will and intellect" - Vatican II) is merely for their benefit, ignoring the absolute central role in salvation the Catholic Eucharist plays in church theology is downright deceptive ("means of salvation"). And the Council clearly taught that Pope and Bishop must be obeyed regardless of whether the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" or not.

Kings and princes have begged popes for access to the "means of salvation" in the Eucharist. Ex-Communication is described in some instances as being bound to Satan himself. Missing mass without excuse or absolution still gains one a ticket to eternal fiery torment. They don't like to publish that doctrine as most American Catholics would suddenly realize that they don't care. But I ask them, if you don't fear the threats of your church, why believe its promises?

Imagine if a bishop commands such for voting against open borders or for supporting the death penalty or for opposing the "Living Wage"? Where will the conservatives be in that debate? "Freedom of conscience" is not madness but a core American value. The Popes and Councils are there to be read, but few do.

I've covered this issue several time before, so I will leave the reader with reference to those entries.

Maybe You'll Believe the Pope
Quoting the Popes = Anti-Catholic?
The Pope's Coming
Dornan Uses Catholic Threats
The Truth About a Crypto-Christian

You can quote the Quran and Mohammad till the cows come home, but try quoting the Popes! You'd think that would be a rather welcome moment from Catholics, but believe me, they don't take too kindly to it. The nuance will flow, but the infallible decrees of Popes and Councils are abundantly clear. Leo XIII thought the teachings were clear and knew that some would come along and try to "reinterpret" those clear statements under the guise of "greater understanding" so he wisely condemned the practice. Unfortunately, nobody wants to obey his decrees as they are inconvenient in 21st century American politics.

Hotair  added its own note of concern just last year. I know that standing against the history of papal anti-Americanism is not popular (you should see my email!), but as Adams, Jefferson and other Founders warned, we must be ever vigilant against sectarian tyranny.

This is why I admire such groups as TrueCatholic.us. These are devout people who rightly (in Papal terms) condemn me, my beliefs and all other non-Catholics as well. I admire real faith when I see it! I'll take the honest over the deceptive any day.

Hotair blogs the Quran but they need to blog the Popes. If writings from the seventh century are worth scrutiny, surely the "infallible" statements of Popes from the 12th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are worthy of equal or greater scrutiny.

“I perceive thou art a superstitious people.”

With that, the Apostle Paul described us gentiles. We are indeed a “superstitious” (or “religious”) people. Many gentiles in that age carried their religious superstitions into the Christian faith. Paul refers to these gentiles as “weaker brethren.” Paul’s description is still apropos in the hour in which we live. Men are still frightfully superstitious. And much of that superstition permeates Christianity. 

From Christmas to “the sanctuary” to “sacred songs” to “robes” to “blessing of the animals” to “holy water” and onto myriads of other traditions (some more egregious than others), superstition is all around us. I cannot, in this space, launch into a full treatise on “hell,” but I would like to make two quick points.

What the Hell is Hell? 

First, very few Christians have ever actually studied the doctrine; they simply take the views they held as children or as non-Christians and fold them into their Christian belief systems. In other words, they take their superstitious traditions and carry them into the faith. How many other doctrines are treated thusly? Ask a child, a non-Christian and an average church member about “hell” and you’re likely to get very similar answers (the same can be said of the “afterlife” but that is another matter for another time).

Secondly, and more puzzling, is the odd set of contradictory doctrines often taught about “hell” by preachers. And I am talking about individuals contradicting themselves. One day you may hear that “the powers of hell” are doing this or that. We are often referred to the verse concerning “the gates of hell” not prevailing. Another day, from the same pulpit, you will hear that “hell” was “created for the devil and his angels” as a place of eventual punishment. Not a headquarters, but a prison.

Well, all those things have their place. The problem is not with the verses (they all make sense in context) it is in approaching the verses with a presupposition. When we take our “superstitions” to the Bible, it makes it very difficult to see what is being taught.

 

Death is not Good

That might sound obvious, but too often death is celebrated in Christianity. We hear talk of the deceased “walking with his Savior” or “he’s partying in heaven.” But this robs from the glory of Christ’s resurrection. Death is an enemy. It is the very thing Christ came to conquer. Paul’s glorification of His and our resurrections ends with the statement “Death where is thy sting? Grave where is thy victory?” The “gates of hell” cannot hold in one who has professed faith in Christ!

We should never celebrate death. The Lord did not celebrate Lazarus’ death. He made no statements about him being in glory or about him in bliss. He wept. And when the Lord spoke with Lazarus’ sister, Martha, he affirmed her faith: she would see him “in the resurrection.”  No talk of any other state. Men are mortal and only in resurrection do we “put on immortality.” We groan in this flesh desiring a new house; a celestial body for a terrestrial body.

 

Looking Towards Redemption

In Job’s time of crisis, he did not look forward to seeing his Redeemer anytime before his resurrection. “Thou the worms devour me, I know that in my flesh I’ll see my Redeemer on the day he stands on the earth.”  David cries that though he makes his bed “in hell” God is still there with him. If the traditions of “hell” are true, of what comfort would that be?

Again, not enough space… but the only comfort in death (the grave) is resurrection. Christ came because men were under the curse of death through sin. He spent three days in three days in the grave. He then conquered the grave. In Him is found the antidote to death! 

If men find glory before the resurrection and if redemption is not the undoing of the curse of death and if immortality is known before the immortal body is given, then the resurrection is reduced to an afterthought, a postscript, an epilogue. Let’s glorify Christ in His resurrection for in it he won our resurrection, our “undoing of death.” After all, death is “the last enemy.”

I don’t refuse to fellowship with Christian who believe in “bodiless souls” or in a place of torment called “hell,” but I will encourage them look beyond tradition.

Ed Bases His Faith in Evolution on Very Slippery Ground

It appears as though Ed Morrisey entered into the theater to review Ben Stein's "Expelled" with his mind made up. He has already concluded that evolution is a "proven fact" and that examples abound. I hate to use the following of Ed, but on this issue he's being quite silly. Ed argues that bacteria surviving antibiotics "proves" evolution. That's not just slippery ground, it's shear idiocy. Sorry, Ed, but starting with 100 of anything and showing one survivor doesn't explain the existence of the 100 you started with. Micro-evolution is not Macro-evolution.

Ed: "Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on."

For one to survive it has to already exist. All he has shown is adaptation of the kind, not a new kind. His example doesn't even come close to the question of how new species come into being or how one species become another. If he had that "evidence" there would be no argument. All he has shown is that an already existing organism managed to survive. That is not "evolution."


Ed Thinks God Favors "the Fittest"

I understand why atheists must have evolution. Without it they are left with nothing. What I cannot understand is the untenable position of the "Theistic Evolutionists." That is, unless their god thinks that the strong destroying the weak is the central theme of the ages.

How theistic evolutionists handle the deity of Christ and all the implications of His death, burial, lack of decay and resurrection in an their system (wherein death is not only God's plan, it is good and necessary). The central theme of scripture (from Genesis on) is "death is not good." The work of Christ was the conquering of the grave. The hope of Job was resurrection. Apparently these little theological core beliefs are of no interest to "scientists" like Ed Morrisey.

Additional thoughts HERE.

The "Boys" of Summer

When I was a kid there was girl who played baseball in the league for 10-year-olds in my township (PA). She pitched and was pretty good. Of course, no boy wanted to fail or appear inferior to her, but that was only natural. No woman wants to be upstaged by a man in a field generally dominated by women either.

We all marked the game against her team on our schedules and we all wondered if she would pitch. She (Pam) was treated with respect. Even at the age of 10 we could recognize talent and appreciate it. My team won the championship that season, but I would have traded many of our guys for Pam's arm. She could throw strikes with consistency. Not too many boys could say that.

I never questioned her "right" (perhaps too strong a word, but somehow appropriate) to play in our league. I never thought less of her as a girl. I would have been pleased to have her on my team... but I still understood the implications tangled up in a boy's world invaded by a girl.


My Day Had Finally Come

Pam had been playing baseball since we were eight. We didn't have "T-ball" or "Coach pitch" leagues in my day. We did our own pitching. From the first time she stepped on the field, Pam wanted to pitch. We were not on the same team for those first two years of organized ball, but I never had to face Pam. That day didn't come until I was ten.

Pam pitched for the Pirates and I played for the Twins. I played shortstop and batted third. In our first game against the Pirates, Pam did not pitch. In our second game she did not start the game, but she came in relief to face me. We had runners on second and third as I watched Pam warm up. It was at that moment that the reality of facing a "girl" pitcher suddenly dawned on me. Until then, her presence in our league was merely a curious footnote in my season.

Wow, I was about to face a girl pitcher in a moment that mattered! This wasn't just any at-bat; people would note this moment. Other guys in meaningless moments could strike out against Pam and have their K quickly forgotten. I didn't have that luxury. Field 3 in Plymouth Township morphed in my brain into Veterans Stadium (located in nearby Philadelphia) complete with its sixty thousand pairs of critical eyes.

As that odd quiet that accompanies a relief pitcher's warm-up tosses gave way to cheers I sauntered towards the plate spinning my bat alternately with each arm. I'd never done that before, but my usual confidence had been displaced with a weird sort of nervous swagger. I had always been conscious of the game situation when I stepped into the batter's box, but that day I suddenly only cared that "Pam the Girl" was pitching and every eye was on me.


Whew!

I wasn't thinking about the game, I didn't care who was on base. I just wanted to be sure that I succeeded to any degree. I wasted no time and took Pam's first pitched and lined it off the chain-link fence in left field; a double. I stood on second base and let out a huge sigh of relief; the most gender-specific moment of my young life had come and had passed favorably (as I viewed it).

I never wanted to go through that again and I never did. We were done with the Pirates and when the season ended Pam was done with baseball. As most of us moved up to the next level of baseball Pam went on to dominate Plymouth's softball league.

I'm better off for having lived through our encounter on the diamond. Pam taught me that in any field, talent is what matters most. Her desire to push herself was to my profit as well. Even if she hadn't been as good as she was, if she wanted to test her mettle against the boys, as long as her safety wasn't at risk, why shouldn't she have that opportunity? Both boys and girls can learn a lot from another kid wanting to test his or her limits.

Overlooking the Three Days in the Belly of the Earth

One of the most overlooked (and misunderstood) parts of the resurrection story is Christ's three days in the heart of the earth. Peter stands before the nation of Israel and makes these three days the center of his Pentecost message of hope (Acts 2:27-32). Let's pause and think on those three days.

The Lord Jesus did not see corruption in the grave. He told us that just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish so would our Lord spend three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. The Lord went to the cross, gave his life back to the Father and then he was laid in the grave (hell). There He stayed and there He accomplished what no man has accomplished. He did not see corruption (decay). That is such a glorious fact that Peter dwells on it richly.


The Great Undoing of Death

In Adam all are under the curse of dust. In Adam we are all mortal, we are all corruptible. The Lord Jesus Christ undid death! In His resurrection we see our resurrection. It is only when we experience our own "undoing of death" (resurrection) that we will have "put on immortality" and "put on incorruption" (1 Cor 15).

Because of the doctrine of the Pharisees, borrowed from the Greeks, teaching that "souls" float around without bodies, the full glory of what Christ accomplished in His resurrection has been lost. The relevance of His three days in the grave, so central to Peter's message to Israel, is also diminished.

Paul argues that all is meaningless "if Christ be not raised." Paul rests all of our hope on the resurrection of Christ and on the hope, found in Him alone, of our own resurrection. William Tyndale argued that the human tradition of "immortal souls" reduced the doctrine of the believer's resurrection to a mere footnote. Our resurrection is not merely a footnote to our redemption, it is the end result of our redemption. God alone is immortal. Men must be made immortal. That immortality, as Paul emphasizes, is "put on" in resurrection.


The Comfort of Resurrection

Paul in First Thessalonians 4 and the Lord in John 11 both comfort the bereaved with the hope of resurrection. There is no thought of "bodiless souls" in heaven. When the Lord comforts Martha with the idea that she will see her brother again, she responds "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Our Lord does not say, "No, Martha, you'll see him in a bodiless form in a heavenly holding tank" or anything like that. He confirms her belief in the resurrection and comforts her with resurrection alone.

Our Lord's conquering of the tomb is our comfort. He conquered death and the grave. His three days in the grave without corruption and His resurrection from the dead give hope to all who face death. Job's hope was bound up in the promise that though the worms eat his flesh (in the grave) "in my flesh I shall see God." Job looked to his promise of resurrection alone.

Peter's great profession of faith in Matthew 16 is met by the Lord's pronouncement that the "gates of Hades" cannot prevail against it. Death cannot hold the believer in the grave. A profession of faith in the Lord is the key to the undoing of death's hold. Death's gates cannot hold in what God will raise.


Victory Over the Grave

We are all just dust given life (spirit) by God. We will all see corruption and return to dust. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Our hope is found solely in the death, burial and undoing of death accomplished by Christ. He saw no corruption that we may look forward to the day when we can say in our new, incorruptible bodies, "Death where is thy sting? Grave where is thy victory?"

The National Geographic Channel is running a series titled “Six Degrees Could Change the World.” They endeavor to show how conditions on earth would change as the planet’s temperature increases. We are taken up one degree at a time until we reach six degrees warmer. The assumption of course is that the earth is warming and we are facing disaster because conservatives refuse to use “earth bags” at the grocery store. However, I don’t want to address that tired topic here.

I am concerned with the glaring illogic in holding to the idea that the earth’s ecosystem happened utterly and completely by accident while maintaining that it is currently in the most advantageous place it could be for life to thrive. The earth’s distance from the sun, the makeup of the atmosphere, the earth’s axis and rotation speed, the distance to the moon, the size of the moon, the magnetic field… I could for on for pages. All of this nailed to a tiny window of temperature. 

The show should be called “Six Degrees Away from Design.”

Well, a blog is no place to argue evolution (not for me anyway). I’m just baffled by people who believe that all humans are just accidents. We’re here for no reason, by no design, to accomplish nothing in particular. Each thought is merely a chemical reaction; a sort of odd “stimulus-response” reaction over which no one has control. And if life is merely an accident with no purpose, what does it matter what form it takes or if it takes any form at all? We are no different than moon dust. Why not "27 degrees could change the world?" Why does human survival matter?

“Six Degrees Could Change the World” only affirms what I discovered years ago: the earth is an extremely complex greenhouse that is a wonder to behold. It is no accident, it has a purpose and it has been designed.

Democrats Obsessed With Race, Gender

At the start of his campaign, Barack Obama stated that he believed that America was "ready" to consider an African-American for the presidency. America may be ready, but is the Democratic Party ready?

As noted previously on this blog, the Democrats are obsessed with matters of race and gender. Plain white guy John Edwards exited the race "so history can be made.." All the pundits are busy examining the exit polls, separating Democrat voters into groups such as "blacks," "Hispanics," single mothers" and "blue-collar white males." Compare that with the Republican exit polls. The GOP is primarily examined in terms of "Evangelicals," "Conservatives," "security voters" and other politically-oriented classes.

I don't like these sorts of divisions, but cable news has to fill 24 hours.

The Left, however, only sees the world in terms of race and gender (even their class warfare is couched in racial language). To the Left we are nothing more that a member of some group over which we have little or no control. Even for those groups over which we do have choice (religion, etc.) the Left still reduces us to simplistic "voting blocs." They are thoroughly sexist, racist, ethnicist and any other "ist" you can imagine (Marxist?). That is not an empty charge. Define any of those terms and then turn on cable news and listen to the Dems.

Defining individuals by their sex, race or ethnicity is what they do. Sexists, racists and ethnicists are what they are.

Conservatives are McCain's Opponents... According to His People

This is a must-hear: SANTORUM

If McCain's people view conservatives as people to be referred to in the second or third person, then they can have it that way. McCain's arrogance and the arrogance of his campaign might even drive me to support Romney (if there is anything left to be decided in May when NC hold our primary).

For the first time since I've had the vote (1984) I'm considering a third-party candidate.

If liberals, moderates and the GOP establishment want their party back, they can have it. Nixon and Ford were great, weren't they?

John Edwards Teaches Us That Race and Sex Matter

Ignoring the fact that he can't break 15% in any primary, John Edwards stated that he was ending his run for the White House so history could be made. He was graciously admitting that he is a white guy. The lesson to be learned is that we shouldn't judge a candidate by his positions or even by the content of his character but rather by the color of his skin (or by his genitalia as the case may be).

So I suggest that Americans consider the following historic possibilities:

Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon president.
Rudy Giuliani would be the first Italian-American.
Mike Huckabee would be the first Democrat president elected as a Republican.
John McCain would be the first Democrat president elected as a Republican.


I Need a Voting Bloc!

The MSM seem to be obsessed with which Democrat has "the black vote," "the Hispanic vote" and "the single women vote." With Edwards out, they're now wondering who gets "the white guy vote." Of course with Rudy out I am stuck with my "Italian-American vote" and no where to turn.

I am quite upset to discover that for all these years I've been opposing my assigned "group." I failed to vote for Geraldine Ferraro. I opposed Mario Cuomo. I've been critical of Nancy Pelosi. I supported Duncan Hunter and then Fred Thompson as Rudy looked on weeping that I wouldn't join my government-sponsored "voting bloc. "Please forgive me!


Stop the Special Interest Groups!

If all these groups are voting in blocs, I am assuming it is because they have common political interests.  These interests would be "special" for each group. Somehow, since the blocs all have their different candidates, we must conclude that their interests are not "for the greater good," but rather for the benefit of the bloc.

To sum: the Democrats think that we should judge ourselves and the candidates by the color of our skins, by gender and by assessing which candidate would best advance our particular ("special") interests.


Exit Question: John Edwards also announced that the Dems would end poverty... did anyone hear him say how he'd do that?

IF McCain Gets the Nod, Where Does He Turn for VP?

In 1988 George Bush 41 went "young and to the right" when he called on Dan Quayle to join him on the GOP ticket. The twelve of us who voted for Jack Kemp in the 88 primaries had hoped that he would have called on our guy, but that's all sour milk under a rotting bridge.

If he's going to unite the party and bring back conservatives from the brink, McCain must look to his right. As likable as Dan Quayle was, he did not instill confidence. Even if Bush had won in '92 (which he should have and almost did... thank you, Ross Perot) the GOP would have been saddled with Quayle in '96.

McCain is at an age that he may not be able to complete two terms. A solid conservative VP selection must happen. If we conservatives are smarting from the McCain surge, we need to refocus and push for him to look to his right to complete the ticket.

For the record, Huckabee is not "to the right."

As a Duncan Hunter Supporter I'm Mortified!

I can't make heads or tales of Hunter's endorsement. I am dumbfounded. I guess Duncan has been in DC too long. Then again, looking at who is left, I'm not sure he had much of a choice. At least Huck is solidly and openly Pro-Life.

Unfortunately for Hunter, Huck may be on his last breath (he's out of money). I was hoping that Duncan might find a spot as the Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration. I hope that is still a possibility should one of the other candidates win in November.

He may be thinking that he has a shot as VP on a Huckabee-led ticket.

Early Reports Out of LA Not Good for Huck 

Nation Review Reports HERE


I realize that LA is a little different from the rest of the South... but not that different. Republicans in LA are ignoring the candidacy of their neighbor, Mike Huckabee. If he can't win in SC or in LA where can he win?

Early reports from Louisiana have Huckster behind McCain, Paul and Romney. 

Out of money and running out of time. The only problem with Huck dropping out is that it would probably help McCain.