commercial

Here is the new Amendment 62 commercial.

The Sovereignty of God

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

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

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

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

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 !!!

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!