America's Life after Death

America lost something that will never be regained and I fear, gained advances toward destruction. Terri Schiavo died today, or rather was killed, while an entire nation stood by and watched. I am disgusted by that fact and I still don't know what, if anything I could or should have done. But, even though this was Terri's last day, I know there will be many more "Terris." Now that we know, our politicians are "powerless" and so many lawyers corrupt, and who knows how many judges without compassion, where will America stop? And once again, doctors are considered "supreme" regarding life. I have truly wanted to stay out of this situation. I am absolutely against withholding food and water from anyone, but I am also against medical intrusion and adamantly against governmental invasion. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart, I would not want to live the way she was living. Now, before all the pro-lifer's go off the deep end, I am not talking about euthanasia, nor suicide, for I believe that is murder. But I can't tell you the number of times I heard people say that life is in G~d's hand, and I whole-heartedly believe that, but it's rare to hear someone say life is in G~d's hand, when emergency resuscitation is taking place. I believe, once man has intervened, the "life in G~d's hand" stand is no longer possible. But that is up to each of us to determine with G~d and our families, preferably before we are faced with the tragedy.
I believe what has so gripped me; is the woman only needed food and water. It wasn't like she was on every machine made and tubes and hoses everywhere. I don't know how much she comprehended, NO ONE does! I had an aunt that had the same tube Terri did and she lived and drove and participated in life. There were a number of things Terri couldn't do for herself, but it turns out, there were things able bodied people could also not do for Terri. So, perhaps her disability was not the issue at all. I know it isn't for me. The woman was killed, quality of life, not withstanding. The entire nation knew of this circumstance and most had an opinion of this circumstance. We all acted and many felt as though they were involved, and we were. Sadly, those in favor of life, even those saying they favored life, or those deciding on the presumption of life, were ineffective. In a word: FAILED. How can a nation that has elected so many pro-life politicians have so much death going on? Abortions continue, there have been two wars declared, we are setting new records and legislation for death row. And now, while everyone tuned into the news, regularly, America has killed an innocent disabled woman. There are no innocent bystanders and there are no political heros. Today, we watched the results of a nation that has chosen death, rather than life. We have undoubtedly passed the point of no return.
you will die by what you kill others by

Why So Much Anger?

America has gotten to be such an angry aggressive society, and I wonder why? And we can't blame this on the terrorists, we had road rage before 2001. I have listened to the suggested causes for a number of decades now and I am beginning to wonder if it isn't just "in the water?" What if it is all the chemicals in the water, that have caused so much deterioration in our disposition? I mean let's consider the number of chemicals it would take to turn a cess pool into drinking water, not to mention the toxins contained. Or maybe it's the result of all the medications we were forced to take as kids. The baby boomers are the first vaccinated generation. Once again, chemicals! Is it any wonder this was the generation that thought drugs would solve anything? We were taught they were the answer and solution for everything, but only the ones your mother told you to take. Maybe the anger is the result of too much mother control. The baby boomers were also the first generation to have mothers that weren't "farm wives." Farm wives didn't have the free time to sit on top of kids that the industrial revolution moms had. And this, also brought us to chemicals. The incredible number of psychotropic drugs that have been developed in the last thirty years is nearly astronomical. Once again, chemicals! And the chemicals are such a simple solution to reduce stress, enhance awareness, alleviate anxiety, diminish depression, limit lethargy, increase energy, ad infinitum. Take one of these "magic pills" with water and . . . We're back to the water. What if the chemicals of the water treatment plant cause aggression? I've read flouride causes problems. It's great for your teeth, but rots your attitude. What if the water we are drinking causes us to forget decorum, abandon basic civility and actuates aggression?
. . . and if there is poison in their drink . . .

Eerie Thought or Haunting Question

I have had a question on my mind for some time, and with the way things are going in our country, I feel now is the time to voice it. First, I must qualify my question with a bit of information that I discovered when studying New Testament Greek a few years ago. The English word for pharmacy is derived from the Greek word for sorcery. When I learned this, I told everyone like I was sharing revelation knowledge. I thought this was real insight that others would be so glad to receive, I was wrong. Seems most Americans of faith, believe that G~d uses sorcery and they prefer their opinions. I also discovered in my reading and studying that in ancient Egypt, those that embalmed dead bodies were called physicians. And we have all become painfully aware of the ethics of lawyers, judges and politicians as they blur the lines between life, life support, life sustaining, and life's value. It seems most of us find their ethics rather unethical. Which brings me to my question . . .
Are the terms "right to die" and "pro-choice" just socialized euphemisms for a "civilized society" that commits the barbaric practice of "human sacrifice?"

As we discuss the subject of life, we find there are politicians that stand by and wring their hands, lawyers that believe they know what is in someone's best interest, for a fee, of course. And the doctors, well first abortionists are doctors, and the expert witnesses in these "right to die" proceedings are doctors.
Think about what happens to those of us that can speak for ourselves when we enter a facility for "health" reasons. I remember this from before I trusted G~d, when I used to participate in the American religious/sorcery compromise. These facilities have agendas whereby we first must sign a form of permission for treatment carte blanc, per their discretion. And even though some nurse may ask questions, there is already in place, procedural protocol, batteries of test, and "things" they are trained to observe, that will actually determine what will happen and what will be charted. For you see, when it comes to health matters, in our civilized society, doctors render the "supreme verdict" and nurses are "just following orders," and the patient must realize when they sign an authorization form, they have relinquished their authority to the "powers." And since all this happens to those that can speak for themselves, what happens to the unborn and the severely disabled? Obviously in many of these cases, the next of kin make decisions that are in the best interest of the next of kin. And usually in these cases the next of kin do not choose to make the sacrifice to care for these humans, so are the humans sacrificed? . . . Michael Schiavo is a nurse. "Jane Roe" worked in a woman's clinic.
do not give your children to be sacrificed to molech, for you must not profane the Name of your G~d.

Remember the Story of Daniel?

I turned the radio on last evening to hear the news blip at the top of the hour just a few minutes before the hour. The Sean Hannity show was on, and to be perfectly honest, I don't listen to it, but this timing was really amazing. I don't believe in coincidence, I really believe that G~d, Himself let me hear this. It was the time of the program in which Mr. Hannity takes calls, and his caller was none other than Judge Roy Moore. I have a great deal of respect for Judge Moore and the stand he took that ultimately resulted in being removed from the bench. I remember when all this happened and I compared Judge Moore to Daniel in the Bible. Daniel didn't give up his belief in G~d, nor compromise, even when it meant the lion's den in Babylon. I was a little disheartened when Judge Moore was reported to have come to my home state to applaud our state representatives for putting some stone on the wall in the shape of Missouri with the Missouri Constitution on it. Because our Constitution has the word G~d in it, Representative Schaaf apparently felt the two situations were comparible. But then I realized, this was simply our local people giving their own report. I never heard Judge Moore compare the Missouri Constitution etched in tombstone granite with the Ten Commandments. What I did hear yesterday on the Sean Hannity show was absolutely wonderful and in character with the Judge Roy Moore I have come to admire and respect.
The coversation seemed strained for the Judge, in that Mr. Hannity seemed to have difficulty comprehending what the Judge was staying. It seemed clear to me, but . . . Basically they were discussing the Schiavo case and the actuality of power between the branches of government. Could there be a better example of a Judge being overridden than Judge Roy Moore, or as Mr. Hannity pointed out, former Judge Roy Moore. Mr. Hannity's question, when he did intereact seemed to be saying . . . Well, what if the Governor or the President did take executive power to preserve life, and the same thing happened to them that happened to the Judge?
Mr. Hannity made a very good point and gave a very clear description of the potential pitfalls of standing by one's conviction. I found the answer to Mr. Hannity's concern . . .
Your God, whose servant you are at all times, will keep you safe
Found something regarding Judge Moore in that same Chapter of Daniel.
Then these men said, We will only get a reason for attacking Daniel in connection with the law of his God.

So Where Will the Power Go?

As we watch this heart-wrenching battle through the State and Federal courts, where is this really going? I called and asked a few questions, only to have my observations and questions politely dismissed. When I suggest that we quit arguing about the emotional and political issues and simply look at the legal matter, why are people offended and keep telling me this is a right to life issue or right to die issue. I think it is a "JUDGE" issue. Since the 2000 election, the spin began to rumble regarding judges, from the Supreme Court on down. We need judges that defend life. Well, I knew that was a bogus claim when Judge Roy Moore was dismissed. At any rate, this quest to remove and select judges or begin to limit their power has been underway for some time and this appears to be just the battle that will cause the desired effect. For today, I discovered that a man got a stay of execution in the state of Texas, no less, based upon his trial back in 1991.
Now, to compare the legalities. Mr. Schaivo is adamant about his claim that Terri did not want to be kept alive in this condition. This is information that he supposedly received from her prior to her "situation" in 1990. Yet, when the law suit was won and the money awarded for rehabilitation, there was no mention of this "advanced directive" conversation, and at the time he made the claim and won the suit, she was living in the state that she is now, but he was not fighting for her right to die, but money for "rehabilitation." There is no reason to believe new information has been exchanged between the two of them since 1990. So how difficult is it to obtain the public court transcript of the law suit? Obviously, court transcripts are available, if someone is truly attempting to leave no stone unturned.
Now, back to our judges. Our government has three branches of power; legislative, executive, and judicial. So if we harness some of the power of the judges and redirect it, if we channel that power another way, where? Which branch will receive the power that gets taken from the judicial? Will the American public be satisfied with more power in Senate or Congress? Can the executive branch have more power than executive order at time of war? Since we have taken the real understanding of law out of so many cases, maybe we should consider a basic law of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when the majority puts forth their mandate based upon emotion and antagonism, and the power of the judges is reassessed and reassigned, who will have the power?
The approval of a ruler is desired by great numbers, but it is from the Lord that man gets justice.

Aggressive Passivity

Most of us are at least familiar with the psychological term: passive aggressive. Basically it is understood to be a way of gaining control or power through means of victimization, timidity or "exagerated meekness or weakness," the underdog. But the point is; it is a power play that results in a certain level of control in a given situation.
It has finally dawned upon me, through the political rhetoric of redefinition that we have been witness to and party to the opposite. For years, our politicians have been right out there in the forefront with "power and promise" or threat of accountability, only for their constituents to hear later, "their hands are tied." We have very powerful men that speak great promises and lead large military maneuvers around the world, that do not have the power to save a little baby or a helpless woman. Now, that is what leaders used to do. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen a politician kiss a baby in ages. Our last president said he "felt our pain." Just what did that mean? It certainly couldn't have referred to job loss or wage reduction, or uncertain pension funds. Our current leader actually appears to believe leaders around the world should consult with him regarding the "running of their countries" and yet he can't make his little brother's state run according to republican rhetoric. A note to Florida, by the way. Might want to consider all those storms and the value of life compared to property. G~d doesn't appear to be very happy with the "magic kingdom" State.
Big talk and big threats and big promises and big excuses and big passing of the buck. As we continue into this 21st century and are told that mandatory and freedom are supposed to be complimentary and rights and invasion of privacy are not conflicting, we realize Passive Aggressive has been turned inside out. You see passive aggression is for a purpose to gain something. Aggressive passivity is simply because someone can keep getting away with it.
I believe the words of an old Indian describe Aggressive Passivity best: Much thunder, but still no rain.
By their fruits ye shall know them

FAIR . . . SCHMAIR

A word that is highly overused and always defined by the user! I grew up hearing the word FAIR and to this day, I still have no idea what the consistency of the definition was, but I did learn to "see it coming." It always seemed situational and depended upon the "who" in the scenario. My mom always had what I believed to be a complicated, confusing definition of the word FAIR. When my paternal grandmother died and I read her will, which also contained interesting explanations according to her definition of the word FAIR, I did learn something. Men do in fact marry women like their mothers. Now back to fair . . . As I read and attempt to understand that the same people who are now explaining these definitions to us, think like my mom, so she says. So my mother really did prepare me to be a productive member of what we now have for our American society. I feel qualified to comment and perhaps explain, not what is fair, just offer a few varying scenarios and question how the word applies when observing the determination . . .

1. Martha Stewart "lies" to investigators about stock, she goes to jail. FAIR ?
2. President Bush found no weapons of mass destruction, he is re-elected. SCHMAIR

3. Woman falsely arrested on cruise for "marshmallow misdemeanor." FAIR ?
4. Supreme Court determines police can wrongly arrest without facing charges of false arrest. SCHMAIR

5. Republican woman that won't tell her age, has "nothing to hide" from the Patriot Act.
that one doesn't even deserve a FAIR or a SCHMAIR

6. Republican broadcaster uses illegal drugs, he faces no charges. FAIR?
7. Retired baseball players questioned about sterroids 25 years ago, may lose hall of fame status. SCHMAIR

8. Witnesses in murder trial questionable, victim of bad reputation, accused is popular, and found NOT GUILTY / ACQUITTED.
9. Pretty victim, fornicating salesman, circumstantial evidence, new law made, GUILTY/ DEATH.

10. Judge Roy Moore dismissed for refusing to remove Ten Commandments FAIR?

Dr. Kavorkian jailed in the same country that Terri Schaivo's mother is court ordered to deny her a drink of water . . .

And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of Adonai

Sealing our Fate ?

I am bothered that America has so many enemies, but I am truly bothered that our two political parties have become combatants to and of each other. And this is not a matter to be taken lightly. I am not necessarily discussing the politicians, per se, either. I have literally heard republicans refering to democrats using adjectives fit for an enemy. And I have heard some very hateful comments from democrats when speaking of republicans. Hey folks, members of both parties are still Americans. Are there Americans that really believe this country would be better without a two party system? And there is a bigger agenda than any one man can run, anyway. But, I think what we really need to look at, is the comment made by the terrorist group that claims responsibility for 9/11. The hatred expressed for our Western culture and the American way. Well, they haven't done anything since that day, but our culture has changed dramatically and the American way is going to cave in on itself, if we don't quit feeding fear and hatred. Now, I am going to refer some pretty blunt things that I have heard and find the need to make comment. First, I hear democrats continuously questioning President Bush's intelligence, and at the same time discussing his global agenda. Well, if he's smart enough to mastermind a global agenda that fools everyone, he's no idiot. So that argument looses ground quickly one way or the other. Now, if we hold on to the same global agenda theory, but someone else is doing the thinking, how do we know he's not the red herring and America is just being kept busy? In all fairness to the republicans and I am not one, democrats shot themselves in the foot, more than once. We must look at this logically. When the unions were losing what little ground they had, and a single stroke of the pen put a NAFTA highway on top of the teamsters, and welfare reform began, and there was no health program actually initiated, and all of that was underway by 1995, under a democrat president. Why in the world would he be re-elected by the very people he let down. So, should they really be mad at republicans?
Now, this is where I get kind of torn between conspiracy theories and simple law of averages. Maybe there is a huge global plan to carry out more hateful attacks against the USA, or maybe just maybe we have crossed the line of which there is no return. Maybe our own divisions and fear of the outside is what is really killing the very heart of America.
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Government can't replace G~d in the Equation

I am concerned about the news. As are most of us. But I am watching more and more matters of LIFE become matters of law, not G~d's Law, mind you, because we are a nation "under grace." No, we have our own law and continue to make more. I am going to address capital punishment, and I am against it, and I know the Bible directs certain offenses to be capital offenses, but!!! We do not live by G~d's law, as a nation, therefore, we cannot reach into the Bible like a bag of tricks and pull out the ones we want to apply to someone else. The Bible says capital punishment for murder on the word of two witnesses. A guilty verdict is not to be determined on the fame or expression of the man on trial and not based upon whether we like the victim or not.
And I am so disgusted that the same people that argue against capital punishment are for abortion and euthanasia and the ones for capital punishment argue against abortion and euthanasia. Is there anyone that simply respects life all the way around?
And this brings me to this poor helpless woman in Florida again. They removed her feeding tube. Now, I heard that Congress and Senate were adamant about getting a bill passed that the Governor could sign into law, but they couldn't agree and the session dismissed for it's "break?"
Well, all of this has me thinking. What if Terri Schaivo was a convicted murderer, the politicians would all be on opposite sides of this debate? What if Terri had not been resuscitated and died 15 years ago? Would there have been an investigation rather than award of guardianship?
What if the women were reversed in the murder cases this week. What if Scott Peterson had been accused of killing a woman that wasn't sparkly and vivacious? What if Robert Blake's wife had been a wonderful woman?
Why is it against the law for a father to kill his unborn child, but it is legal for a physician to do that? So, if Scott Peterson had a medical degree, would it not have been murder?
And now for the big question!
What if we acknowledge that life and death are not to be in the hands of humans?
So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.

Grateful for the Good News

I think this is a wonderful concept. And that one would tell another one, and they would each then tell two, and two would tell two more, and two more would be four and . . . What if we just stood for what we believed and not fought about what we are against? What would happen? I personally haven't seen much of that lately because I've been busy shooting my mouth off or typing skepticism, or anything that keeps me from really having just a good attitude about what I do believe. Because I realize being annoyed with what I don't believe in, is not only time consuming, because there is so much, but it is exhausting. So I have decided to share the things for which I am grateful and realize they must be appreciated, because if I am right about the things I am regularly writing about, goodness and enjoyment of life could in fact become a fond memory. So, while it is current, I am going to share some goodness and give thanks to G~d. Last night I called my daughter's and left a message, and I was grateful for the answering machine, rather than focus on the fact that she never answers her phone. It wasn't long until the phone rang. My husband answered the phone and there was a sweet little voice that said, "hello." They had spoken for just a moment, when he said, "You need G~ma?" What a delightful thing to hear. Somebody that was cheerful and would very soon tell me, she was "good," her day was "good," needed me. We had a wonderful conversation. We didn't discuss the news. We didn't discuss politics. We didn't discuss the latest law named for somebody. We didn't debate beliefs and party differences. And we didn't have to discuss the weather to avoid all those other topics. We just chatted about good things. I got to share in her delight of talking on the phone in her room, after her bedtime story, because she was now 6. Ah, with age comes privilege! We chatted for awhile and then she told me she loved me, her mom said it was time to go to sleep and her sister might want a turn. Her sister didn't want a turn. There was no reason for it, just didn't. Isn't that nice. She wasn't mad, she wasn't snubbing, she wasn't concerned with political correctness, she wasn't afraid of being recorded. She just didn't want to chat on the phone. She's the artsy type . . . no reason, just because. Ah, the art of being! Now, came little brother's turn, who told me all about what everyone was supposed to be doing, because he is in fact the "little man" in charge and he has no problem with that identity. Ah, he is comfortable with who he is! He was not yet in bed, he was doing chores, watering the rabbit, to be specific. But he couldn't chat with his "drea-ma" long, he needed to talk to Poppy. Now, let me bask in the fact that my 2 1/2 year old grandson says "dr" for "g." It's delightful to be called a title that sounds like a vision. But he and his Poppy needed to discuss pliars and screw drivers and man things. So, I found myself thanking G~d for the important things. Then, when everyone had their turn, my daughter got the phone. We had our chat. We don't have a "warm-fuzzy" relationship. We talk politics and religion and current events. I hope she likes that, because that also makes me thankful and proud that I get to have those kinds of discussions with my daughter. And even if we don't agree, that girl can think and express her views. She can hold her own in a discussion of world news. She told me she reads my blog, and she told me she likes it. She didn't tell me, I'm a religious nut or a political cynic, she just told me she keeps up on it and likes it. Ah, the generation gap narrows from chasm to canyon or maybe even just schism by now! And for that I am thankful.
I am thankful for so much and not thankful enough for many things, but I am very grateful that G~d gives second chances and third chances and . . . And I am thankful that even though there is an element of paranoia in our nation and in what we say, I am grateful that I can write this. I am not in agreement with many of the things our nation is doing right now, but I am grateful that I have the freedom to be an "odd duck" and believe what I am blessed to believe.
In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of G~d in Messiah Y'shuah concerning you.

Life, Death, Playing G~d, Etc.

The news has really rattled my cage today. And it's not that I think I have more insight, it's because I think we are all operating on minimal insight. I have read about two murder trials that have come to conclusion on the same day. I have read about men killing people in church and in court and I have been listening to and reading news reports regarding Terri Schiavo. What in the world is the matter with us? I am first going to discuss the ones that we really know who did it. The murders in the church and the court are both horrible, but leave no lingering doubt as to who is responsible. I don't know why either man made the choice they made to kill, nor why they made the decisions for themselves that they did. Honestly, I don't know why a man that was depressed and apparently suicidal, but religious, decided to take the lives of several others along with his own. Now the man in Atlanta that was going into court on a charge that already indicated violence toward women is another matter entirely. I really don't know why he turned himself in, and I certainly don't know why the Prosecutor would have any questions regarding the prosecution of this case, so it's really good I won't be on the jury.
Now to the next two men. One went free and the other was sentenced to death. In one case the prosecution had at least one witness that claimed to have been approached by the accused to commit murder. The other case provided what was termed a "mountain of circumstancial evidence." I was absolutely shocked months ago, before the trial even began, to find there was already a "made for TV" movie about the one case. Of course, it was pretty clear when the Connor law was signed by our President, most of America had already made up their mind. And when it came time for jury deliberation, jurors were removed from the one case and allowed to deliberate for days on the other. How much more evidence was there against Scott Peterson than against say, O.J.? And I am completely undecided on both cases, so this isn't a matter of right or wrong for me, just observation of inconsistency in matters of life and death. Which does bring me to the my next point. As I was reading the news regarding Scott Peterson, it was noted by the reporter that Mr. Peterson may very likely die of natural causes before the sentence is actually carried out. The article stated that the most recent execution was carried out twenty years after the person had been sentenced. Which is much longer than Terri Schiavo who has not committed a crime and did not have a trial, has been given.
And, to make this very clear where I am standing, I have a living will. Even though I do not seek medical advice, in the event, someone would call 911, I have orders on file. But, Terri does not and the decisions were already made years ago to resuscitate her and maintain her life whatever quality status that is. And a jury trial awarded her "guardian" a hefty sum of money to be used for her rehabilitation. And now, she is facing death by determination of the court?
Okay, I'm going to ask this one more time . . . What is the matter with us? What is wrong with this picture? Does all this make sense to anyone?
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

"Pass It On"

Everyday, my e-mail contains well meaning letters or sayings or would be insights that someone deems thought provoking and worthy of sharing. The awkward part of this is, at the bottom of the e-mail, there is always some compelling statement urging the recipient to pass it along to everyone they know that has a computer. The statement always has a certain element, I now call e-guilt and e-thority, such as: If you care, send this to . . . If you truly believe whatever, you will stand up and be counted. . . If you love Jesus, send this to 10 others and the one that sent this to you, and if not, just delete this message. Now, I love the Messiah, I call Him Y'shuah, but I am not going to be e-pressured to promote a ton of political/religious propaganda in the bulk of the message. The reason I am on this particular subject is the "One nation under G~d" in all of our national symbols, concern. First, it was not in the flag salute until 1954. Second, how blurred is the line between a national symbol and an idol? And third, our nation, by definition and by declaration, is not a G~dly nation. And I am not talking about our eroded morality, although that is an indication of a nation that isn't paying a bit of attention to G~d.
But when we say G~dly nation and Bible principles, that just doesn't line up with freedom to worship. I don't think anyone can site one Scripture reference in which a nation could call themselves G~dly and do things the way they wanted. G~d not only gave His people instructions as to how to live and what to eat, He told them how to worship and where. Now, He did give people the freedom to not worship Him. Freedom to worship or not is the choice that is both national and Scriptural. But that can only be the choice of an individual in a nation that guarantees freedom of worship. So maybe if the individuals felt strongly enough about this to actually live their faith, in their individual lives, it wouldn't take a national referendum or Supreme Court ruling. Rather than legislation about being called a G~dly nation, perhaps the most effective solution would be for individuals to be G~dly people.
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Why is it that one party can say something and we applaud and agree and when the other party says the same thing, they are moral degenerates? Or maybe we are absolutely appauled regarding certain morality and views of members of one party and someone of the favored party is discovered to have a similar track record? Suddenly there are excuses or at least a list of noteworthy contributions that should outweigh the transgression. It's nothing more than a double standard. And the sniveling over name calling . . . Senator Byrd should realize he cannot make derogatory remarks about President Bush. What Rush says about democrats is all right, because he is not elected, but paid. The democrats just don't have somebody that can do for them what Mr. Limbaugh, and Mr. Hannity are doing for the republican party, and they truly needed somebody. I say that in past tense, because it is. We are almost a one party nation and that makes the majority pretty happy. Now, on to the women. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice, has always expressed that view, but lately she's trying to soften her stand. "Hillary, forget it, you won't sway a republican, anyway and the democrats already like you." As a matter of fact, the last thing she needs to be doing is sounding wishy-washy about any topic, right or wrong or left. If she has actually changed her mind, great, then say that. If she hasn't, different words don't change the facts. Now Dr. Rice is not clearly pro-life, she merely does a great deal of side-stepping the issue, but that's ok, because she's republican and conservative. Why, if the President trusts her, his followers certainly can.
Now, back to this saying and doing business. Does anybody remember how mean the comments were out of the conservative camp, regarding Chelsea Clinton, back in 1992? And she was, what, a 13 year old girl; who by the way outgrew her awkward adolescence, very attractively. Then, when the marriage issue came up in a debate, Senator Kerry was found offensive by the "right' to comment on Cheney's daughter, who is very much a grown woman and not exactly silent about her sexual preference. Clearly, we all have more choice in our sex life, than in our looks at puberty.
So here's the bottom line . . . it's only acceptable if the party we like, does or says it, and it is reprehensible if the party we do not support attempts the same thing. That is the American standard. Think about it, this standard filters and drifts down into all sorts of views and issues in our society.
differing weights and differing measures - Adonai detests them both.

Understanding the Difference

Now, I'm simply going to show my ignorance here, but why not? I am having a difficult time understanding the difference between medicare, medicaid, and socialized medicine. I think the main difference between medicare and medicaid is federal and state, and probably the reason or age of the recipient. I think medicare is an "entitlement" by age and medicaid is based on need. So, if that is correct, it is simply a matter of the governmental level. But, since both medicaid and medicare are provided and regulated by the government, what isn't socialized about that? Isn't socialized medicine, medical care that is provided and administrated by the government? So if all of our older generation is on medicare and 20-25% of our younger generation is on medicaid, again I ask, what's the worry about socialized medicine? Now, I don't play the medicine deal at all. My religion states that G~d heals and if I didn't have this religion, I think I have issues with having to pay someone I am supposed to trust. I'm sure I don't want to have to pay someone to look at me with my clothes off, so with all those reasons, I will simply remain an uninvolved inquirer.
And where are e-records going to fit into the equation? I already heard that one of the goals of the present administration is to eliminate paperwork in medical records. So is the main difference between socialized medicine and what we are "fighting for," social awareness? In socialized medicine everyone is aware of and involved in the same program. In our soon to be paperless, HIPAA protected, government regulated medical programs, will the common citizen or concerned loved one even know what they are in for; or why no one will tell them?
But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words

In Whom Do We Trust?

In the debate between pro-life and pro-choice, it has been discovered that our modern doctors may no longer take the Oath of Hippocrates, rather a modified version has become widely accepted. And someone noticed that the original Hippocratic Oath contains a statement in which a doctor would not use his medical education or degree to provide an abortion. So, the idea has been proposed to bring back the original Hippocratic Oath, thus removing the abortion prodecure from medical practice. I took the liberty to copy and paste the original oath and a portion of the modern oath. The modified version was written in 1964, and I don't know the time frame for the modified version to have replaced the original in use, but the entire baby boomer generation was delivered by a person that took the original oath and made their vow before the Greek gods and goddesses.

THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.
"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Upon graduation, many medical students take a modern version of the oath written by Louis Lasagna in 1964.
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version:
. . . I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. . .

So what will a society do that is dependent upon an educated individual explaining to them "the knowldge of good and evil"regarding their health? If we continue with the modern version, there is no stand against abortion and really some severe leniency in "playing G~d" hinting toward even euthanasia. And what about electronic medical records and verichips regarding this pledged privacy? If we bring back the original Hippocratic Oath, can a true believer of Judeo-Christian values pay their office call to an individual that lives by that creed and swears by false gods?

and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,

Specific Faith and the Freedom Initiative

This New Freedom Initiative is already in action. The kids are officially being tested and the "grateful liberals" are just eating up this benefit and the "family morals group" thinks it's about time to weed out those trouble makers early. Does anyone else see a real connection here? I have had a little front row view of the adamance of "open-mindedness" and the absolve of morality monitors, and you know, there's just not much difference. I happen to fall, not between, but outside of the "loop" of both groups, so I have the dubious distinction of hearing and watching their similarities. Do I sound a bit lofty, maybe, but since I have actually experienced that illogical abundance they call knowledge, I do know of what I speak. You see, I am one of the real religious whackos that really believe G~d heals and doesn't need help. Well, that in itself is called "grandiosity" by the professionals that man calls psycologists and G~d calls enchanters. I used to think there was maybe a point of compatibility or even possibly a complimentary approach, but I have since discovered from both the openminded liberals and the morality monitors that I am certainly in the minority, and was mistaken. You know, what's funny is, the beer drinking, heathenistic sports-enthusiasts that think Sunday is the day one worships in front of EPSN, have the same opinion of me, as the choir member of the mega-church, and the fact that they are in the majority, would be scary, if this wasn't history repeating itself. I made the mistake a few years ago of thinking I would have rights as a patient, well never again. Then, I thought I could share the Words of G~d with those around me. Of course, I did share, I should share, but just like the Bible said, they would not receive it. And that is what concerns me about this faith based politics and freedom initiative. We are dealing with people that feel in control to determine other's lives and people that feel in control when others rally to help them, so both conservatives and liberals are lapping this stuff up, literally feeding each other's power needs. And the few of us that really believe what G~d says will be at the mercy of the New Freedom Initiative, and no matter which group leads and enforces, their mercy has yet to be seen.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Secure or Scare ?

Since we now know, all the terrorists cannot be stopped and they will always have another country to move the weapons of mass destruction and it is only a matter of time . . . At least that is what we are continuously told. And you know, I have no reason to doubt any of this, but I also have no reason to live under the constant torture of the threat of terrorism. Isn't that what the bad guys wanted; to change our culture? So why are we changing our culture and calling it winning the war on terrorism? Something may happen again, according to Scripture there is only one cataclysmic event that will never be repeated, so we don't need an "Ark Construction Department." I have many questions since reading the 9/11 Commission Report. As a matter of fact, what I have read of it, reads very similarly to the Report by the Warren Commission. Now, this is usually the time my mother accuses me of anarchy, well she's my mom, and she really thinks I take "fear" lightly. She's always afraid, I will open my mouth to those in power and get myself in trouble, and yet she supports these powers and thinks they are defending our freedom??? Actually, I don't take fear lightly at all, I believe it to be a lack of faith. I remember the power of fear when I was a kid, as most of us do. When I was a kid and wanted to go ride my bike in the road or walk somewhere, I would inveriably hear a horror story about somebody getting hit by a car or kidnapped and killed, whatever would work as a deterrent to my request. And those things are awful things that do happen, but . . . And now the President is doing the same thing with terrorists. Only, now that I am an adult, I have two added variables. One, I am a tax-paying citizen, so I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness and the free speech that I pay for. The other variable is a little mature wisdom also known as logic. As a logical person that has been listening to the news and spin for these past three and a half years, I have realized something. I recognize the "what if" and inevitability of the fear factor, in the outlook of the people that perpetuate living in fear. They first attempt to convince you that you don't know what's best for you, and sometimes that works on five year olds and I can tell you personally of one that it did not. Sadly, it appears to work and take hold best in mass hysteria, and add a little aggression with grief and an administration has itself a cause and staunch support. And once in awhile, when the fervor dies down, just remind the fearful crowd, "'They're planning and plotting against us. It could happen again. 'They' are just waiting for us to let our guard down. " But for those of us that have not bought into this "it could happen again,fear" we run the risk of eventually being the problem. Because at the controls of this runaway train is a leader that has already misquoted scripture and stated. "If you're not for us, you're against us." And yet, we are told this new Intelligence System, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act have made things safer. So which is it? Are we safer and more secure and are all these systems in place to remind us to be scared?
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Data vs. Research

We are at a point in history in which we have information available, literally at our fingertips. And yet, finding just pure information without bias is difficult. And really, who knows then? I read an article today about homeopathic and herbal remedies being on the shelves next to the "traditional" OTC cold remedies. The problem? You might wonder what would be the problem, people can have a choice between natural and chemical. The main problem is homopathic and herbal products are not recognized by the FDA, therefore concerns are raised. Now, I have a concern about this concern, and that is where I find the real misconception in data and research. Data, by definition is simply information that has been collected. Research is a systematic investigation. Therefore research is usually much more specific in nature for a precise purpose. Now that herbal and homeopathic products have trademark names and are actually patented, for marketing, things may change. Since remedies have been a part of the pharmaceutical industry, there has been a financial factor that has previously eliminated the potential value of herbal remedies. If something could not be patented, and a plant cannot be exclusively patented in it's original state, then an herbal remedy could never be owned exclusively. But now, there are "natural" formulas that can be trademarked and patented. So, very soon, if our government enables itself to establish control over our access to natural products, the FDA may be taking a new look at some old remedies.
If the FDA does not recognize herbal or homeopathic products, how is it determined they have no positive or negative effect on a person's health? If the only data that is respected and recognized must be collected by their own research, how biased will it be? Data is information. Research is something that is being sought. So, are the results of research usually deterimined prior to the investigation? Isn't much investigative research to find what someone wants to discover? Aren't most research grants given based on the projected outcome before the controlled experiment is even in place?
Why didn't the FDA see the potential in all these OTC products in the convergence of meth labs? Because their research didn't figure that into the equation. This next observation doesn't address OTC products, but look at all the harmful prescription medications that have been taken off the market recently due to severe side-effects and even deaths. And these products were researched and approved by the FDA. Not that I am advocating anything illegal, here, but what do you think? Have there been more deaths due to overdoses of marijuana or valium?
What if the marketers and those keeping inventory simply offered the best researched data?
Will people continue buying herbal and homeopathic products if they don't work?
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed

The RIGHT be Wrong ???

I awoke this morning to the usual radio reporting of blips, bytes, and blurbs. That is just enough of the news report to realize something is happening, but I am not sure what; if anything, I heard correctly. I was at the point of realizing it was time to get moving, when an interesting conversation began in an interview of one of our state representatives, by our local radio host. It is interesting to note, the representative that I am referring to is also a physician that has enough time and energy to be in the state capital making decisions, as well as tending to his patients. At any rate, he began sharing about his accomplishments of the week, to which I could not believe my ears. Our local college has finally become a University and we now have a plaque etched in stone, by the local monument company, hanging on the wall of the state house, and he actually tied all this hullabaloo into the hearings regarding the Ten Commandments. That's right, His plaque of the Preamble of the State Constitution in the shape of our state contains a reference to Supreme, Almighty Creator. Now, I have a real problem with that. How does anyone equate a project designed and accomplished by man, with Laws etched in stone at the very hand of The Almighty Creator? This is when I really saw the idolatry in our nation and the party of power leading the way. And I began to realize just how much idolatry we have come to accept in the name of patriotism. And I will admit, I attend synagogue weekly, and have not attended every form of worship in America, but have attended some of the prominent Christian denominations. So, back to American idolatry, since our state seems to be leading the way in religious politics and the union of government and worship.
When we hear the national anthem, we stand. What about singing hymns or praises? When we pledge allegiance to the flag, which is an interesting dychotomy already, don't we stand? Is there standing when the Bible is read? I suggested that once in church, based on a passage in Ezra, but . . .
We stand when the Torah is viewed, but few can read the Hebrew that it is written in.
And what about all the pomp and protocol in a room upon the entrance of our political leaders and foreign dignitaries? Anybody see all that go on when there is going to be prayer?
How is it, that we have just accepted all the reverence is due our symbols and leaders, and we can just be casual and cavalier in our regard to The Almighty Creator?
And I won't even get started on the eagle and the list of symbols and monuments that we would never call idols.
And my last thought, as our Supreme Court determines where it is appropriate to display the Ten Commandments. Has anyone considered asking G~d, where He would like them displayed and if He even wants His Words to be considered on the same level as our state Constitution Preamble?

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them

Hate Crime

I was going to read the annual statistics the FBI keeps on Hate Crimes, but the page was taking so long to load, I was afraid "they" might be analyzing why I wanted the information. And with that, I realized the term "hate crime" lends to the paranoid innuendo of "thought policing." When I first heard the term; hate crime, I thought, well isn't there a certain degree of hate or at least a lack of regard to commit a crime against another individual? Then I realized I was mistaken, because before there were crimes of hate, there were crimes of passion. So of course, the analysis of someone's thoughts must occur to take into account "crimes of passion," also. Which often lessens the sentence when one is found guilty. So, crime motivated by hate is worse than crime motivated by passion? Why? Doesn't the victim suffer the same results? There is the implication for a crime to be one of passion, unlike a crime of hate; there has been some sort of provocation . . . ? It's as if society has deemed us less responsible for our passion, but more accountable for hate, which is continuously being loosely redefined. There I go again, on my redefining "soap box." The next thing one realizes, is that our intent is being analyzed and determined by whom? Someone that has their own thought issues or someone void of the process and ability to think? To truly analyze the impact of a perpetrator's thoughts in determining the intensity of the crime and the penalty, who holds the pure standard? And how much hate is displayed and expressed without the commission of an actual crime? Is it criminal to teach children to hate? The Bible says, yes. Of course the Bible also says, judgment of the heart is up to G~d, not man. Now, since there is actual documentation regarding hate crime, then are our thoughts policed? Or is it only after a crime is committed? Or do we actually know who is keeping track of what? What about all this profiling? And I know, I hear the conservatives say in an Imperialistic tone, "I have nothing to hide." And to that I say, "then I guess you are free to give up your privacy." And I hear the liberals express their "humanistic condescension" to label everything and everyone that does not have the insightful grasp of understanding they have acheived. So, I would say, like everything else that is going on, there will not be a sane, logical, approach to this from either party, but there is hope for the rest of us. The conservatives just keep having more to monitor, so that keeps a large number of them listening to each other, rather than interacting with the "non-cons." And as for the liberals, they are beginning to realize, as long as their creed is based upon humanism, the game plan changes almost daily, and remains introspective and self-focused. So the only thing we non-criminal independents must be wary of, is; expressing our thoughts when either group is crusading to illuminate.

for the LORD sees not as man sees; for man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.

CENSORED

As our nation continues to redefine the American dream or nightmare, depending upon where you are in the plan, we have also come to the realization that redefinition raises new questions and stands. For nearly every attempt at freedom of expression, there is someone that is offended and therefore feels the need for censorship. Is anyone noticing how confining this "being offended" is making our entire society? We have activists from every represented group and both sides of each issue calling for either freedom of expression or censorship. Because, when it gets right down to the brass tacks, censorship is being redefined, right along with freedom. The moral majority; and that is what they are now according to the last election, sees the need to determine right and wrong for everyone. And they have not so graciously taken on that task. We have preachers condemning cartoons for implied sexual content or association and I never heard one address the issue of violence or magic in cartoons. I have said for years, there is a promotion of the occult with Disney, but that's major programming for the family channel. And even though the "red states" are offended at "politically correct," try disagreeing with them about their politics. To disagree with the present administration is not "politically correct" and seems almost illegal in some states. Oh, that's right, you can't even lead another country and disagree with our administration. Is there a clearer definition of Political Correctness?
Now, before the blue state partiers get too smug, the extreme liberals are really doing their own type of censorship. If one person gets offended by something that is displayed or said, it is grounds for legal recourse, call the ACLU, and . . . Who calls that freedom? In the name of free speech, have we considered how many things are no longer politically correct to say? A politically correct society is absolutely living and speaking under constant, continual Censorship.
My husband and I are personally related to "non-moderates of both political parties and I have noticed they all sound the same. It is no safer to disagree with a liberal than it is to disagree with a conservative. And I am not a member of any political party and I will be the first to admit, these blogs are definitely opinionated. Free speech is supposed to be the right to say something, even if everyone else thinks it's stupid. You know, we here in America, need to take notice of that. We are getting dangerously close to declaring it illegal to do something stupid and/or selfish, and that will affect all of us. It used to be we could simply "consider the source." But that was before the days it was politically correct to to redefine the word Censored.
A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.

Separation of Church and Bible???

As I continue to listen to both sides discuss the separation of church and state and hear the "reasoning" to be very different, yet the end results sound the same. And what I have truly come to believe is this is nothing more than a red herring or tangent causing many to miss the greater fear, which is the separation of the American church and the Bible. But, I guess religious America has to choose to miss that point, because if we actually recognized the Bible in it's literal simplicity, look at all the real uproar there would be. If we really believed our laws were based upon the Ten Commandments, then judges wouldn't be removed from the bench for giving everyone "fair warning" as to how he would arrive at his decision. And, most do not know, but it was in fact possible for the Republican Governor of that state to reappoint him, but he didn't. So what are our laws based upon and what are the beliefs of the self-proclaimed pro-faith party? What book does the pro-faith religion believe?
And how in the world would doctors stay in business, and nurses keep jobs, and let's not forget the pharmaceutical companies, if religious people believed the Bible and quit going to them? Shouldn't that be a profession utilized only by unbelievers? How do religious doctors interpret the Bible, or are more of our religious doctors of a different faith, that use a different book? I have had many discussions with many people as they defend the man they place their faith in. Do you know most religious Americans think G~d needs help restoring health? They really don't believe He can do it Himself.
How did we stay so religious and get so far from Bible truth? There has always been a math equation that I just cannot figure out and I have been part of that "unstable variable" myself. How can so many people have made a "decision for Christ" and continue to put their faith in the same places unbelievers do? How can a person that claims to have faith in G~d seek help from someone who either doesn't believe or believes something contrary to the claims of the American church? How did so many people hear so much evangelism and yet have such a social decline? What if children were raised according to Biblical standards? That wouldn't just change the behavior of the children, now would it? But when they did rebel, they would at least know what they were rebelling from.
How is it, that people who believe the Bible literally, get "corrected and challenged" by members of the American church?
What would happen, if "moral" America spent the same time in the Bible that is spent listening to "liberal slamming" radio? What would happen if we all spent the same time praying that we do in waiting rooms or pharmacies? What would happen if we followed G~d's instructions as diligently as we do phone prompts? What if the American population that says they believe in G~d and believe the Bible, and stand against evolution, really believed He is still the All Powerful, Almighty Creator?
Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.