Truth Belt Buckled

commercial

2010-08-04T21:47:00.003-04:00

Here is the new Amendment 62 commercial.

The Sovereignty of God

2009-10-15T15:33:00.005-04:00

Today, one of my Facebook friends posted that she "is trying to grasp what the "sovereignty of God" really means.".
That is a very good concept for us to better understand. The dictionary defines Sovereign as "a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.". It simply tells us that God is the ultimate authority over all of his creation. That still tells absolutely nothing about the character of God. After all, a king could be good or he could be evil.

To better understand how God uses his authority we need to know more about God. If we get a good overview of God from the bible, we learn that God is living, personal, relational, good and loving. How does that effect how God exercises his authority?

Since he is living, personal, relational, good and loving God desires to have a genuine love relationship with human beings. To have a genuine love relationship he gave humans the freedom to actually make a choice whether to love God or hate God. Love that is not freely given is not really love at all.

To be truly loved, God needed to risk being hated. He chose to not retain all authority because he chose to delegate some of that authority to us. Because he wants a loving relationship with us, he delegated to us the authority to make all of our own decisions. Because he is good, he reveals to us what is truly right and what is wrong, what is wise and what is unwise... but he always lets us choose whether we are going to do the right thing or the wrong thing. He also allows the natural consequences for our actions to takes place.

God delegates authority to parents to "train up their children in the way should they go." If the parents don't take this authority seriously, the children will suffer and the parents will be responsible for that outcome. If the parents delegate this responsibility to an unGodly authority, the children will suffer and the parents will be responsible for that.

God also delegates authority to human government to protect the it's people through the military, police, criminal justice system, etc... and he delegated the authority to build infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, etc.
God gave governments a template in his law for what is criminal and what are the proper effective punishments for those crimes. If The government ignores the wisdom of God in this area the nation will have a crime epidemic and the people will suffer. If the government takes money from the people to spend it to take authority for areas that were not delegated by God, the people will suffer.

God know that if they government takes over the responsibility to feed kids, that many parents will no longer feel any responsibility in that area and those parents will soon come to believe it is the governments responsibility and the less they will do for their own children.

If you send a government welfare check to an adult who is unwilling to work, that person will soon believe that it is a "paycheck" that is somehow owed to that person just for existing. That person is ultimately damaged by that check, just as they would be damaged if they were no longer responsible to pay their medical and other bills.

God delegates spiritual authority to church leaders over their local church. If they misuse that authority by not equipping the church as God intended, the people of the church will suffer... and society will suffer because the church will not be the witness that God intends.

A good and loving God will not remove the consequences when his children make bad decisions.

A good and loving Parent will not remove the consequences when their children make bad decisions.

A good and loving Government will not remove the consequences when their people make bad decisions.

A good and loving Church will not remove the consequences when their members make bad decisions... just as God will not remove the consequences to the members if the leadership makes bad decisions.

We have a God who is willing to relinquish some authority so that he can have a true love relationship with us.

"Jesus, Take the Wheel" might be a moving country song, but Jesus does not take the wheel. He always leaves the driving to us... but he is the perfect "GPS". He shows where we should go, but he allows us to make the decision whether to take that road.

James Bopp from Nat'l Right to Life Endorses Embryo Experimentation

2008-09-01T09:23:00.007-04:00

In recent years, National Right To Life has progressively become less and less pro-life. Earlier in this presidential campaign season NRTL endorsed Fred Thompson for President. This is the same Fred Thompson that opposes any law that would actually prevent a woman from aborting her unborn child.

They have recently endorsed John McCain for president because apparently he is saying all the right words to get their support. McCain is now saying that he's pro-life and that life begins at conception. He also says that has always been his position. If he has always believed that life begins at conception, he has betrayed that position on many occasions.

McCain has endorsed experimentation on human embryos (unborn children) to try to find cures for disease... when a true pro-lifer would be seeking a cure for killing unborn children.

McCain also has often said he opposes the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, yet he says now he is for overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Now I am all for personal repentance and genuinely changing one's heart and mind... but McCain insists that he has always been pro-life and that he has been consistent in his positions. If he now, was willing to go public and say "I was wrong and now I see the light and as a result I have changed my position." he would at least merit a look into his candidacy,

There is no evidence that McCain has changed. In fact, in the previous video he claimed to have never changed his position. Only his words have changed, not his true positions.

Now NRTL's own general council and spokesman James Bopp has gone on record as supporting the dismembering of of human embryos and experimenting on them. He has decided to split hairs to be against creating life for the purpose of experimentation, yet Bopp is all for ending life for experimentation if it isn't created for that purpose... but only for therapeutic reasons. Of course they do these experiments for therapeutic reasons...does Mr. Bopp think some are doing it just for sport?

Mr Bopp... The reasons don't matter! It is never moral to purposely end human life just to find a cure for a disease. No matter how that human life began! You have now joined the Dr. Mengele club.

Has NRTL denounced the statements of Bopp and issued a condemnation. No, they have been silent.

Why? Because NRTL is no longer a pro-life organization. It is simply a political organization and an arm of the Republican party. The same Republican party that gives them vast sums of money to endorse Republican candidates.

Alan Keyes - Power in the Park

2008-08-28T21:45:00.006-04:00

Presidential candidate Alan Keyes addressed the crowd at "Power in the Park"
at Martin Luther King Park in Denver. As he speaks you can see the largest Planned Parenthood unborn baby killing center in the background.

Debate theology, religion, politics and everything else.

Nat'l Right to Life Opposes the Right to Life

2008-05-19T10:44:00.014-04:00

One would think that National "Right to Life" was founded with one clear agenda. America must recognize that unborn children have a right to life.

Now by opposing the Colorado personhood amendment, NRtL has clearly come out against the unborn having a legal right to life. How can a "right to life" organization oppose a law to recognize that an unborn child actually has a right to life?

National Right to Life has lost their way. They can no longer see what they clearly saw at their beginning.
NRtL has been promoting child killing regulations, none of which deals with the right to life of the unborn.

Parental consent laws deal only with the rights of parents to have authority over their minor children. They never even suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.
Informed consent laws deal only with biology, but never suggest that the unborn might have a right to life.
Manditory waiting times never suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.
Fetal pain laws again inform about possible fetal pain and that you have the option of making the pain go away, but never suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.

Now, as real right to life people are backing an amendment to truly recognize the legal right to life for the unborn in Colorado, NRtL actually gets in the way. Somehow legally recognizing that the unborn have a right to life doesn't fit into their strategy. The NRtL strategy becomes more convoluted as time passes. They continue to raise vast sums of money, but they do nothing to reach their original goals. If fact, it seems like they are actually opposing their original goals.

Wouldn't we be stunned if NASA decided to oppose space exploration?

It would be very shocking if the National Football League came out against football.

But, National "Right to Life" opposes the right to life and most pro-lifers seem not to even notice.

The Legacy of Judas National Right to Life
By Brian Rohrbough
President, American RTL

Governor Arnold Can Stop Lying Now

2008-05-18T10:13:00.004-04:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger is now showing his true colors. He has always privately supported homosexual marriage.

But didn't he twice veto bills that would have allowed homosexual marriages? Hasn't he repeatedly spoken publicly against legalizing homosexual marriage? How would I possibly come to the conclusion that he actually support homosexual marriage?

Last week the California Supreme Court overturned the state law that forbid homosexual marriages. Was Arnold outraged? No! Was he even a bit peeved? No!
What was his response?

He promised to not only fully support the ruling, he declared that he would oppose any movement to amend the California constitution to ban homosexual marriage. Why on earth would he oppose such an amendment?
He is opposing an amendment because he was never against homosexual marriage. He always privately supported it.

His public position was simply a lie for political expediency. Now that the court has ruled, Arnold can claim, "I wasn't me. It was the court. It's not my fault!".

Conservatives in America have tolerated and in some cases supported Arnold... just because he's a celebrity who calls himself a Republican. The Republican party loves having an immoral womanizer liberal celebrity in their party. It's just another sign of what they have become.

Speaking of immoral Republicans... did you notice that three out the four California Supreme Court judges who overturned the homosexual marriage ban... were Republicans?

The immoral court has now given an immoral Arnold political cover to support an immoral law.

Were we really expecting more from him?

John McCain is not pro-life !!!

2008-02-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

Tis' the season for for liars, otherwise known as a presidential campaign.
"I'm the next Ronald Reagan... I'm the true conservative... I'm pro-life... in fact I have a 100% pro-life voting record!".
One Republican after another continues to make these claims, while hoping that no one checks to see what is really behind the curtain and discovers that the wizard is not what he seems.
John McCain is now the front runner for the Republican nomination and he is making the same claims.

Let's check that pro-life record...

McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.” Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999
The repeal of Roe vs Wade would force women to have abortions? How exactly would that work?

Q: In 1999, you said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."

A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.

Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?

A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007
Since McCain is not claiming to have changed his position. The context under which abortion happens in America hasn't changed since his first statement. Is he saying he no longer has concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn? No, he is simply obfuscating the facts by speaking nonsense.

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Apparently the issue is not so tough for him, since he isn't really one of us in the pro-life community. He can't see the immorality of experimenting of the bodies of murdered embryos. He also fails to acknowledge that if a cure for a disease ever did come from these experiments, that mass quantities of embryos would need to be produced to manufacture the cure in any realistic quantity to satisfy the demand of those seeking the cure.

ALAN KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, “Let’s have a family conference.” You’d look at her and say “Just Say No,“ because that is morally wrong. It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our declaration of principles is just as wrong.

McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.

Source: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000
A reasonable question might be, "What pro-life record?"

McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. “I don’t believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars,” McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.” Source: New York Times, p. A17 Jan 25, 2000
Not only does he think it's OK to murder the unborn children of rapists, all any woman would have to do is say they were raped... and he'll just take their word for it. Let's see... 1.5 million rapes and not a single arrest. What a coincidence!

Who Are The Leaders Running For President In 2008?

2008-01-01T22:10:00.000-05:00

As we approach the the 2008 elections, I thought it might be a good time to study the history of American presidential elections to see if there is a pattern to what kind of candidates have been elected.One distinct pattern did emerge. American tends to only elect leaders to the presidency.

What qualifies as a leader in the eyes of the people? Governors, Vice Presidents, Military Generals and Presidential cabinet members make up almost the entire list of American Presidents.

What doesn't qualify as a leader? U.S. Senators and Congressmen. In the entire history of the Republic only two U.S Senators and one Congressman who moved directly to the Presidency.

Two of those three had previously been a military General and the third, John Kennedy had earned the reputation as war hero as the Commander of a PT boat in WW2. We elected the congressman in 1880, one of the senators in 1888 and the last one in 1960. When we vote in 2008 it will have been 48 years since we elected a senator or congressman.

It is my theory that America tends to see leaders as those who at some point were in a position where as President Truman said, “The Buck Stops Here.”. Senators and Congressmen rarely are in that position as they occupy roles mostly defined by political compromise rather than actually leading. This doesn't seem to bode well for Senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain or Thompson.

Just taking a look at the leaders that are still in the race. We have Governor Huckabee, Governor Romney and Governor Richardson. Rudy Giuilani's position of authority was as mayor of New York, but a mayor has never stepped up to President.

Senator McCain was an officer in the military, but his greatest military fame came from getting captured by the enemy. Former Ambassador Keyes also served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.

When you examine the field the pool of leaders gets quite small. Once we have established who the leaders are, then we can take the next step of evaluating which of these would be effective and wise leaders. The pool gets really small from there.

Figures Don't Lie, But Liars Figure

2007-11-21T17:35:00.000-05:00

My Father taught me a saying that he learned from his father. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Polls are almost daily cited in media sources to make one point or another. Rarely to these polls reflect the truth. Questions are asked and the answers are twisted in a way to try to point to a conclusion the is simply untrue.

Today on the Time Magazine website I read an article about the movement in Colorado that is proposing a recognition of personhood for human embryos from the point of fertilization.

Toward the end of the article the author stated...

"Nationally, pro-choice sentiments appear to remain predominant. The Center for Reproductive Rights in October released a poll results indicating that a majority of voters don't support government interference with "medically necessary procedures prescribed by health care professionals."

Have you ever seen an abortion protester with a sign that said "We are opposed to "medically necessary procedures prescribed by health care professionals."

That is not the pro-life message. Pro-lifers are in favor of removing a bad appendix or a tumor if it is medically necessary.

We are very much against killing and unborn child because he complicates your life.

There is NEVER a time when it is "medically necessary" to destroy or dismember an unborn child.

Thou Shall Not Covet! Thou Shall Not Steal!

2007-11-06T21:16:00.000-05:00

Most of us recognize these commandments as part of the ten laws that God wrote in stone and Moses presented to the nation of Israel.
With these commandments God firmly confirmed that the the right of personal property is a fundamental right that is to be protected by the government.

The government only has a few proper functions. A good government should protect the rights of it people with military, police, etc. The government also needs to provide shared infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges, etc) for the common good of it's citizens.
This is why we are to pay taxes... to support these just functions.

Jesus told us to help the poor, but Jesus never advocated forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another. It was Robin Hood, not the Son of God, who advocated that immoral philosophy. When government takes even one dollar from one person simply to give it to another... it is stealing.

When we make a personal choice to give money to the poor, it is love in action, charity.
But when you steal someone else's money to “do good”, it is not charity, it is theft.

What motivates citizens to advocate for the government to take money from Peter to give it to Paul? What motivates them to believe that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage tax they they themselves should pay? Envy!

They covet what belongs to those better off financially and want some for themselves.
When people begin to depend on the money taken from others, they begin to believe that somehow this money is owed to them. It is common for welfare receivers to refer to their check as their “paycheck” as though they had actually earned it.

In any free nation, the rich will always be in the minority. In a democratic society where the less wealthy are in the majority, the temptation of the less wealthy majority will be to steal from the more wealthy minority... and they will if they can get away with it.

The coveting of what belongs to others easily moves to the theft of what belongs to others. The only additional ingredient needed is opportunity.

Politicians feed this covetousness by promising to give them stuff if only these people will vote for them. The politicians promise to give them money and prizes that don't belong to the politicians. They buy the votes with stolen money.

As a result the whole political system is driven by appealing to the sin nature of man, rather than the desire to govern justly.

It is bad enough that non-Christians support the Robin Hood philosophy of government, but today many Christians are also both advocating and voting for the same thing.
The “Faith Based Initiative” was offered to churches and other Christian ministries to tempt them to partake in the evil of stealing from others. Sadly, many of them thought it was a great idea.

Many Christians these days are displaying WWJD hats, shirts, jewelry and bumper stickers. They ask, “What would Jesus do?”, but they ask in ignorance because they've not taken the time to learn what Jesus actually did say and do.

Thou shall not covet and thou shall not steal were Jesus' commandments.
He thought these words were important enough to write them in stone!

A Bully Pulpit Needs A Preacher

2007-10-31T23:27:00.000-04:00

President Teddy Roosevelt recognized what he called the "bully pulpit" of the presidency. The is one of the most significant powers that a President has. It gives the president a huge opportunity to persuade, to influence the hearts and minds of the people of this country.

Bill Clinton said "Abortion should be legal but rare." Yet, in eight years in the White House, he refused to use the bully pulpit to help save one life."

George W. Bush said "America is not ready yet. The hearts and minds need to be changed". Yet in his two terms in office he has refused to use the bully pulpit to persuade anyone not to have an abortion or persuade one doctor not to do an abortion or one legislator to write a constitutional amendment to protect life. He couldn't even persuade his own wife, his daughters or his mother to advocate protecting the unborn.

In the recent debate on Truthtalklive there was the question of which candidate would kill more kids. A better question would be... "Under 8 years of Hillary or Rudy, will either candidate save even one unborn baby?"

What almost every Democrat and Republican presidential candidate now has in common is the fact that they too will never use the bully pulpit to fight the fight for the unborn.

As sincere as Mike Huckabee may be in his position, as a governor his pro-life role has been mostly passive in his pro-life position...besides in almost every other position he's a liberal.

Alan Keyes in the ONLY candidate who will use the bully pulpit the fight the fight for the unborn as long as he has access to the pulpit.

If Rudy Giuliani gets into the White House as a Republican, the the pro-life wing of the Republican Party is dead and the influence the pro-lifers had on the Republican Party will be gone... maybe forever.

The reason why there has been a pro-life plank in the Republican platform is because up until recently many secular Republicans believe that it's been what's needed to get the support of the Christian right.
If they can get the vote support of the Christian right without having to be pro-life, they can then move to be an openly pro-choice party.

A bully pulpit is a terrible thing to waste. Let's vote to use it!

Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

I Was Pro-life Before I Was Pro-choice... or Was It Pro-choice Before I Was Pro-life...?

2007-10-31T17:10:00.000-04:00

So Mitt Romney is now saying he is Pro-life? Has he checked his notes to make sure? Not only is he now claiming to be pro-life, but he now says he has always been personally Pro-life! What does that even mean?

Who was that guy who looked and sounded like Romney who has been promoting the legalized murder of pre-born babies for years? Was this an alien life form inhabiting his body? I know that Dennis Kucinich claims to have had alien contact, but is this now also the claim of Romney? In 2002 he was clear on his pro-choice position... except his opponent in debate accused him of being multiple choice.

In October 2004 he re-affirmed this position in a debate with Ted Kennedy.

November 9, 2004 - The day of his claimed epiphany where he later claimed to have changed his mind and became pro-life. On Feb, 7, 2007 Washington Post reports Romney's abortion epiphany took place on Nov. 9, 2004 in a meeting with Harvard researcher Douglas Melvin concerning embryonic stem cell research... but Melvin says Romney is lying about their conversation.

On May 25, 2005 The Boston Globe wrote an article that Romney was hinting at a change in position.... and suggesting that a move in position was positioning himself for a 2008 Presidential run.

Two days later on May 27, 2005 this video catches him saying he supports no change in the status quo for abortions in MA.

On March 15, 2007 on Larry King, he discussed his new pro-choice state by state postion... claiming he has always been personally pro-life.

In August 2007 claimed being pro-choice state by state... he skillfully double talked to avoid being pinned down on the contradiction that he had recently claimed to support a pro-life amendment.

Romney says enough of the right pro-life sounding phrases to convince gullible Christians to vote for him, but he is careful not to totally scare away pro-aborts.
Mitt Romney is willing to say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get elected.

Should a good temple Morman lie? What would Joseph Smith say?

Oops, I forgot... he was a liar and a con man too!

John 8:32

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Please Lie To Me!

2007-10-30T15:09:00.000-04:00

Even though the 2008 elections are still over a year away, the political wars have begun. In every war there are casualties. In the political wars, truth is almost always the first to fall.

In the Republican party most of the candidates seem more prepared for Halloween than the Presidency of the United States. Each one is wearing his “I'm the real conservative” costume, even though the costume is ill fitted at best, and tearing at the seems at worst.

Lying is common for politicians and we've come to expect it. Now it seems like we not only expect it, we let them get away with it and sometimes we actually desire it. The Christian pro-life right is especially guilty of this. Candidates who have supported legal abortion their entire careers need only say “I'm pro-life” and most of the Christians will just take his word for it. Never mind that the candidate has never done one thing to advocate the saving of even one innocent pre-born baby. Why are these Christians so easily swayed away from the truth?

Sometimes we are just naïve, wanting to give the guy the guy the benefit of the doubt, but often it is lack of effort to seek the truth. Some actually want to be lied to so that they can justify (to man) voting for a bad candidate who they think can win.

If we are going to vote, we must only vote responsibly, because we are responsible for our vote.

A naïve voter is not a responsible one... neither is a voter who won't seek or see the truth.

Matthew 10

16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Guilt Is Not Diluted By Numbers

2007-10-30T10:33:00.001-04:00

We've been hearing about recent water shortages in the south as a result of drought conditions. We all understand that if you have a limited amount of water and a lot of people, the amount of water for each person is reduced.

Guilt, on the other hand is abundant in supply and can be shared without ever becoming diluted.
If one man murders another, the murder is 100% guilty. Yet if a mob of twenty murders a man, each one of twenty is 100% guilty of murder.

When planes were flown into the twin towers by Al Qaeda members, guilt was not limited to the terrorists on the plane, but was properly distributed to all members of Al Qaeda. This is true because all members of a terrorist group are part of the conspiracy to murder. Even a file clerk for Al Qaeda is 100% guilty of every murder committed by them.

According to the current polls, many pro-life Christians are saying they will support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Giuliani has been an ardent supporter of abortion. He supported it with his own donations to Planned Parenthood. He supported it by advocating tax payer funding for abortions and for supporting even the the most grotesque partial birth abortions.
While claiming pro-life status, Romney and Thompson have both been against laws that would actually be against abortion.

When government officials advocate the freedom to murder the unborn, they are part of the conspiracy to murder the unborn.
They are 100% guilty of murder. Not just the murder of one, but the mass murder of millions.

If you say you are against abortion but are willing to endorse one of these candidates with your vote, you will have joined the conspiracy to murder and there will be plenty of guilt left for you.

You will be 100% guilty.

Proverbs 29:2

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.