The Controversy isn't about "The Path to 9/11," it's about Freedom of Speech

Shortly after the beheading of Nicholas Berg, I joined a political yahoo group called FREEDOM'S FORUM, this is a private group which claims on it's main page:

"This is the place where all ideas, pro or con can be expressed without the use of personal attacks on judgment, intelligence, or motive. We all agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

In this yahoo group many members were putting forth what I considered nothing short of absolutely CRAZY conspiracy theories about how terrorists didn't behead Nicholas Berg, rather our own government had staged it...you'd have to ask them the reason our government would want to stage a beheading of one of its own citizens, it's beyond me and I paid little attention to their insane ideas other than to recognize that they were insane. If you question that this sort of thing goes on, one click on this link: Nicholas Berg MetaFilter, will prove my case.

I only mention Nicholas Berg's beheading to set up the timeline. The reason Freedom's Forum came to mind was because with the recent call from Democrat leader's Reid and Durbin and others Requesting the Cancellation of “The Path to 9/11,” the ABC mini-series, my mind naturally returned to the days and weeks prior to the opening of the Michael Moore mockumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Many of the members of Freedom's Forum, which was stacked overwhelmingly with rabid left wing ideologues, were convinced that our government, under the leadership of "Dubya" would make some effort to stop it from opening at theaters across the country and that's the point. For all the liberal gnashing of teeth about Republicans marching in "lock-step," for all of the Hitler comparisons and charges of fascism and authoritarianism, for all their charges against the Bush administration's supposed treading on civil (sic) liberties (sic), the Bush administration and the Republican party did not call for Fahrenheit 9/11's opening to be canceled, did not issue a letter from Republican leaders to stop its opening. I waited, I watched, it didn't happen.

Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in theaters across the country and our President had little to say, it was as though he hardly noticed. Did some Republicans point out misrepresentations and outright lies promoted as fact in the film? Yep, but no one challenged Michael Moore's right to make the film or its distribution. Jeff Shannon's review at Amazon.com has this to say:

"Rarely has the First Amendment been exercised with such fervor and forthrightness of purpose...with the singular intention of toppling the war-ravaged administration of President George W. Bush. It's the Bush presidency that Moore, with his provocative array of facts and figures, blames for corporate corruption, senseless death, unnecessary war..."

The Bush Administration and Republicans failed to make a concerted and unified call for F-9/11 not to be aired, not to be allowed to show in theaters.

Before I was censored from sharing my views at Freedom's Forum by being cast out and BANNED from ever returning (*ahem*), the DNC held its Convention in Boston. In a Common Dreams story: Free-Speech Zone? Democratic Convention Plan Puts Protesters Blocks Away it is reported that:

"The disappointment in the preliminary plans is likely to be the start of a protracted battle that has the potential to end up in court, as did a similar dispute at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles. Relegated to a parking lot blocks from the convention arena, protesters sued, and less than a month before that convention began, a federal judge ruled that the designated area was unconstitutional. Organizers were forced to move the area to a parking lot directly across the street from an arena entrance, in keeping with earlier federal court rulings that any legal demonstration be allowed within "sight and sound" of its intended audience.

In New York City, where the Republicans will hold their convention this year, police are anticipating tens of thousands of protesters. No plans have been made for where protests will be allowed, but civil liberties groups have already raised concerns about potential police tactics."

In a link found here: Republican National Convention Blog NYC 2004, following is the protest schedule map permits demonstrations, and I quote:

"Permits for marches, demonstrations, and sound devices have been issued to 19 organizations and 20 venues by the New York City Police Department and Parks Department for a variety of separate events before and during the Republican National Convention.

Since this list was last issued, five additional permits have been issued to a total of 19 organizations at 20 venues, including the National Organization of Women for a rally of approximately 50,000 in the East Meadow of Central Park and United for Peace & Justice with a march and rally for approximately 250,000 north on 7th Avenue past Madison Square Garden and west on 34h Street to the West Side Highway.

Permits have been issued during the period of the RNC for the following concerts: Summer of Love, Rock the Vote, and the New York Pops. While the Convention itself begins Monday, August 30th and continues through Thursday, September 2nd, permits have been issued for demonstrations and other events beginning Sunday, August 22nd."

I'm sure all of us can remember the media coverage of the streets of NYC, full of protesters in the days before and the day of the RNC in 2004. There was no Republican leadership calling for them to be caged blocks away from the RNC site.

Further, liberal Democrats across the country united to condemn the airing of "Stolen Honor" because they feared the adverse effects on voters should those *ignorant masses* view it, as documented by Media Matters.

Broadcast Engineering and Digital Television reports here: Beyond The Headlines - Oct. 18, 2004 that:

"As waves of controversy continue over Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air an anti-Kerry film on its 62 stations only days before the presidential election, the FCC’s Michael Powell said last week that the commission has no power to stop it....

...Nineteen senators wrote to Powell asking him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group’s plan to run the program only days before the Nov. 2 election. The senators termed the 90-minute program an “attack ad” against Sen. Kerry.

Separately, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission contending that Sinclair’s airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush’s campaign. The DNC said the program was “written, produced, and funded by extreme right-wing activists” and that the station group is going to broadcast "a blatantly political—and false—message while disguising it as ‘news.’"

The FCC’s Powell, contended the FCC does not regulate editorial decisions by media companies, and said the only federal regulations that might come into play in the wake of a broadcast is an obligation that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates in federal election campaigns. According to media reports, an offer has been made to the Kerry campaign to appear on TV after the program has aired."

PressThink advised: John Kerry Should Accept Sinclair Broadcasting's Offer:

"Kerry should accept.

If he takes the deal it sets up an historic broadcast. A final confrontation with the Right. Isn’t that what the Right wants too? A chance, indeed, to clear the air about Vietnam, and a lot of other things. Will America watch? America will watch. And if he can’t win that broadcast, he does not deserve to win the prize.

But the main reason he should take the deal is that his advisors are gonna say: are you nuts? And that’s the point: to create Kerry unbound. Alone with the camera. Let him prove himself right there and make the election about even more than it is now.

Take the deal and get someone really smart to negotiate it. The program must be live, and air unedited. Sinclair must use its own people on the panel— no hiring Britt Hume. No adding Bush to the panel. The closer to election day the better."

Kerry didn't have to accept, however, because as this Online NewsHour Update shows: Sinclair Pulls Back from Airing Anti-Kerry Film. Sinclair caved to the pressure of Democrats to not air the program.

What does all this suggest? Simply that Democrats like to portray Republicans as treading on their civil liberties when it comes to fighting against terrorism, that when there is actually something of importance like the war on terror and National security at stake they are unwilling to make the smallest of sacrifices to aid in the war against Islamic fascism, but by Jeebers, don't call attention to any shortcoming by any Democrat, past or present!!! Everyone knows that National security, or the lack thereof, is the sole and singular responsibility of George W. Bush!!!

The ACLU opposes profiling of Arabs at our airports, opposes sections of the Patriot Act, takes our government to court over their right to prosecute Al Qaeda affiliates, see ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Declare Guantánamo Bay Military Commissions Illegal and fearmongers about public library records, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

When we examine which party most vocally calls for censorship of news, movies, mini-series, or documentaries intended to inform the public of historical FACTS pertaining to the lead up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or, in fact, any promotion of any material which might cast either party in a bad light it has been consistently a Democrat trait to call for censorship, to demand the cancellation of the airing of certain possibly politically charged media pieces.

Why should it be any surprise that now Bill Clinton and his past administration is in a snit fit over the airing of the mini-series about "The Path to 9/11?" The Chicago Tribune reports that the Clinton team protests `9/11' film...:

"A mini-series about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials said in letters to the head of the network's parent company.

But in a statement Thursday ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, . . . so criticisms . . . are premature and irresponsible...."

...Former President Bill Clinton told reporters Thursday that HE HADN'T SEEN THE MINI-SERIES but said "I think they ought to tell the truth." (emphasis mine)

...and Reid and Durbin have sent a Letter Requesting the Cancellation of “The Path to 9/11.”

In Senate Bill Silences Freedom of Speech, I exposed Bill SB 1437, introduced by Senator Kuehl, Democrat, California. To quote myself:

"We keep hearing cries from colleges and institutions of higher learning about the importance of hearing different viewpoints, about "academic freedom," and as long as they are defending the likes of a Ward Churchill or even high school geography teacher, Alan Bennish or the burning of "Old Glory," liberal Democrats are all for freedom of speech and expression, but if you are traditional-value minded it appears they want to make your viewpoint a criminal offense."

Democrats talk tough about free speech when it advances their own agenda of bashing George W. Bush and/or the Republican party. They like to dish out rhetoric but before a mini-series has aired, before Democrats have even seen it they have more or less threatened ABC with veiled repercussion if they air this mini-series. The fact of the matter is that no one has yet seen the mini-series in its entirety and I trust the "ignorant masses" to view and form their own opinions regarding the series. Now I hear that there has been some editing done since Clinton and his cronies raised such a stink, editing due to political pressure has been CONFIRMED by the WRITER of the mini-series. Is this a free press? No. This is what the Democrats would like to do to our free speech rights. The Democrats have reminded ABC that their licensing would be coming up for renewal in the future (hint, hint). I sincerely hope Democrat voters are paying attention to their leadership. I sincerely hope that they can see the hypocrisy at play in this episode and the others I outlined in this post. Republicans have some problems, but problems with free speech is a Democrat problem, not a Republican one.

A Re-Run: Jim Wallis and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum

I thought since Jim Wallis is back in the news because his book, " God's Politics," has just come out in paperback edition that it would be a good time to provide a link to this post:

On Jim Wallis, Progressive Christians and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum

Now, I'm off to my Mother's house to help her prepare for an out patient test tomorrow!

Some Catty "Bickering" about the Strossen/Filler Debate

Last night I attended the opening convocation at Drury University. This year's theme is "Liberty and Security in a Post-9-11 World." I chose it from two assignments offered at Springfield Citizen-Press, which is an experiment in citizen journalism started by Andrew (Andy) R. Cline, an assistant professor of journalism at Missouri State University. He edited and published my report: Filler, Strossen debate balance between security and liberty this evening at the Springfield Citizen-Press website. I had a great time with this experience and would encourage anyone interested in writing and learning about journalism and the ethics involved to take his challenge, go on an assignment offered at the site and enjoy what was for me an otherwise unavailable opportunity, to work with a journalism professor without paying tuition!!! ;o

Professor Cline has promised to give me some feedback tomorrow afternoon and I look forward to his constructive criticism.

Cline gave me a few hints on what to pay attention to at the debate last night and encouraged me to be non-partisan and report the story without bias. I gave it my best effort. Now, I can have a little relaxed fun about the event. :)

At least a couple of things really struck me at the debate.

During the question and answer session, Gene Davison, President of the Peace Network of the Ozarks singled out Mr. Filler with the question of whether the government had looked at his library records and if so, would he be able to tell him or would it be kept secret. Mr. Filler, naturally, couldn't say whether the government had looked at Mr. Davison's library records but as he went on to address the question in a broader sense, Mr. Davison stormed out of Clara Thompson Hall, slamming the door loudly behind him as he went. Some people in the crowd expressed surprise, craning their heads to see what had happened with shocked looks on their faces, I heard one girl exclaim, "he left before he got his answer!" He didn't even get to hear Nadine Strossen thank him for his activism in the community. There's just no pleasing some dissenters!

I am absolutely and completely a supporter of free speech and expression. I rather enjoy participating in it myself. That's what makes it ironic when someone like Strossen seems to contradict herself. First Strossen spoke about how important it is to have open debate and exchange of ideas and how she, and the ACLU, want to make sure that our country remains a beacon of freedom and liberty and then she quoted Tom Cain, and I didn't get all of the quote, but it was accusatory in tone about "bickering" (and when she said the word "bickering" she practically spit it into the microphone as though "bickering" was truly disgusting). My husband and I were talking about it after the debate and we decided that it must be freedom to dissent when she voices her opposition to the Bush administration but if anyone disagrees with her views and opinions it must be "bickering." Sigh.

Now, one more thing. While I was doing some background research on Nadine Strossen as requested by Professor Cline, I came across an excellent example of bias, check out this quote from a Reason magazine interview with Ms. Strossen:

Reason: What are your priorities as president of the ACLU?

Nadine Strossen: My priority is to be a prominent, visible spokesperson for civil liberties. Recent events have revealed that civil liberties are never going to be secure unless there is public understanding and support for them. The Supreme Court issues decisions that are protective of rights that are not supported by at least substantial minorities of the population. Politicians run against the Court, and you get something like the Reagan and Bush presidencies stacking the Court and seriously endangering some of our most fundamental rights.

I guess Republican Presidents STACK the Court and Democrat Presidents simply nominate Judges to them. Sigh number two.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't disappoint Professor Cline that I just had to get all this catty "bickering" out of my biased self. ;)

Senate Bill Silences Freedom of Speech

There were several articles to come out yesterday regarding California's SB 1437 Senate Bill. Here is a link to the article which called it to my attention:

Why liberals are crushing dissent::By Kevin McCullough

The most troubling to me? McCullough points out that teachers wouldn't be allowed to discuss the higher rate of health problems associated with the gay lifestyle, even in a science class. That school councilors could not suggest that if a molested student didn't feel right about continuing in a homosexual relationship that it could be because the behavior was first introduced to him by a molester and that could be the source of his "bad" feelings or guilt feelings and if any issue concerning the morality of homosexuality were to come up in discussion teachers would be forced, by law, to praise it rather than condemn it as immoral.

This is exactly the sort of mentality that I was addressing when I wrote It's About Our Children, Stupid! back in October of 2005. Keep in mind that I was embroiled at the time in arguments with Progressive Christians, something I later disavowed as divisive to the Church. In March of 2006 I wrote another entry addressing some other problem issues involving the introduction of gay marriage to our society titled The Frog in the Pot.

This is not simply an attack on people who hold traditional values about marriage, it is an attack on a person's right to verbally disagree and dissent from the viewpoint which supports it and attacks their very ability to educate children about facts which effect their health, both mental and physical. It makes it criminal for children to be apprised of the health risks associated with homosexuality.

Beyond that, and in view of the war we are currently fighting against extremist Islamo-fascists, one is left to wonder if a teacher would be allowed to condemn acts of terrorism since they seem to be part and parcel of certain sects of Islam, a religion, after all.

We keep hearing cries from colleges and institutions of higher learning about the importance of hearing different viewpoints, about "academic freedom," and as long as they are defending the likes of a Ward Churchill or even high school geography teacher, Alan Bennish or the burning of "Old Glory," liberal Democrats are all for freedom of speech and expression, but if you are traditional-value minded it appears they want to make your viewpoint a criminal offense. As John Stossel might say, "Give me a Break!" Tell me again about how the Patriot Act treads on your freedom of speech, liberals, I need a good laugh.

Any "Progressive" Christians out there want to defend this Senate bill? I'd love to hear your defense of this.

Isn't This Peachy?

According to Mary Dalrymple, an Associated Press Tax Writer, the IRS Warns Against Phony Debt Collectors:

"The IRS warned taxpayers Wednesday not to be duped by scammers posing as private debt collectors the agency has hired to chase unpaid tax debts....

"...The IRS plans to give the collection agencies basic identifying and account information about the chosen taxpayers, including their names, addresses and Social Security numbers...."

But not to worry, just because the IRS is incompetent at collecting tax receipts, which it is paid by the U.S. government to collect, doesn't mean that they are incompetent at hiring private collection agencies to collect it for them. AP writer Mary Dalrymple tells us they have taken the precaution of doing back ground checks on these collection agencies before they hand them your name, address and Social Security number.

So, when those collectors begin calling you from their homes with screaming babies in the background, don't fret, they've been vetted by the IRS before they called you to badger you about your debt and if you owe more than $25,000.00 or have contested that you owe the IRS any portion of the amount they claim you owe, you're off the hook altogether. The IRS is only referring people who owe less than $25,000.00 (by their figures) and haven't contested that they owe the amount the IRS claims they owe.

Of course by only turning over the names, addresses and Social Security numbers of those who owe less than $25,000.00 they only target citizens who, likely, cannot afford to hire a tax lawyer to represent them and therefore, have the least access to interpretation of the tax code and the least understanding about what their rights are and what they can and should use as deductions when filling out those VOLUNTARY tax returns. ;)

My suggestion to those who are under attack by, what some refer to as the domestic terrorist organization known as, the IRS is to call the Taxpayer Advocate Service. Mary Dalrymple provides these links:

Internal Revenue Service: http://www.irs.gov

Taxpayer Advocate Service: http://www.irs.gov/advocate/index.html

NTEU IRS Watch: http://www.nteuirswatch.org/

The AP reports that:

"...Identity thieves have posed as IRS agents in "phishing" schemes that use the tax agency's logo to lure victims. The e-mail schemes are designed to dupe taxpayers into revealing personal financial information."

Support the Fair Tax Act. Go to Americans for Fair Tax to find out how you can make a difference. Join your State's FairTax Yahoo Group! Join today!

Update: Click on this link and take action: National Treasury Employees Union -- The IRS Proposes to use Private Sector Debt Collectors to Collect Tax Debt I changed the last paragraph on my email to my Senators and Representative to read:

Support H.R. 1621, the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2005 and work to ensure that the IRS is not allowed to give out private citizens personal information to collection agencies. Then do the right thing and co-sponsor the FairTax Act of 2005, HR 25/S 25.

"Getting to Know you, Getting to Know All About you..."

Oh well, I've just been bumming around visiting some local blogs. I haven't checked all of them out yet. I'm working off of The Rhetorica Network's local blog roll.

I like Dissonant Dissident but he hasn't blogged anything new since February 6, 2006.

Doc Larry at Lost Chord rubbed me the wrong way because he abruptly ended a discussion on his entry Who Said It?. In the course of the discussion I felt he misrepresented the USSC ruling on the 2000 election, wherein the USSC pretty much turned it back over to the State of Florida to be decided based on Florida State Law, but when I tried to point that out he let me know in no uncertain terms that it was his blog and the discussion was over. When I replied again he promptly removed my reply. I always think it is tacky when someone will not discuss their postings and debate an issue but, you know, he's right, it is his blog, if he wants to edit his comment section to disallow dissension about his opinions that is his business, I just thought liberals were all about the freedom to dissent, I guess that only applies to the original dissenter, mustn't dissent from dissent, or something like that? :0

Now, I'm not trying to get off on the wrong foot with anyone because I'm really looking forward to meeting the bloggers in my local area, hopefully at the next bloggers' meeting and I have this generous spirit which doesn't always come through in writing, a spirit which allows for clashing opinions without leading to the dislike of the one with whom I am clashing. I like lots of liberals, and like them a lot, I just politically disagree with them but they are usually pretty decent people in a mentally messed up sort of way...heh, heh.

I'm a conservative, somewhat waffling Republican who leans a little libertarian with a strong affection for the truth and facts. As a matter of fact I even blogged about HONESTY once. I suppose honesty and truthfulness run a close second to God Almighty on my list of priorities. Call it an extreme quirk but I've never been able to lie...it just isn't in me. When I even tell the tiniest of "white lies" it really bothers me.

So, I'm gonna keep checking in on local blogs. I had a good private exchange with Larry Litle of Simple Thoughts of a Complex Mind and he seems like a very nice guy. Loved his story about The Tooth Fairy.

Shak El of Shak's Commentaries has been visiting with me. So I checked out his blog.

I plan to keep looking around, hoping to get to know the local bloggers a little before I meet them for the first time. I hope they are as easy on me as I plan to be on them, except for that Doc Larry critter. I might put the evil eye on him fer a minite ur tew, jest fer kicks. :)

The only problem with that is that in person I am very shy, reserved and a little hard to get to know, I don't expect that I'll be any different than usual at the bloggers' meeting. Be gentle with me. Please.

Defending the Faith from Political Attack

The divisiveness among the Christian Church continues to grow. I've been thinking about WHY it is growing.

As many of you who read my blog know, I spent a year or more trying to engage in discussion with "Progressive" Christians. I've since realized that there is not much point in arguing with people who refuse to compromise and funny, I'm sure they'd say the same about me.

Today, I write this even though I have said that I do not wish to contribute to the divisiveness that has sprung between the "Progressive" and "Conservative" Christian but as I was discussing what I planned to write about next with my husband this morning something occurred to me that had never occurred to me before, it is nothing new, as you will see.

I do not write this to be divisive, I write this because I believe it to be the truth and I believe that we each have a responsibility to share the truth as God blesses us. I plan to explain why it is not the "Conservative" Christian who divided the Christian Community, as "Progressive" Christians like to claim but rather the Word of God which has divided the Christian Community just as it has historically done throughout generations. First I must lay a little ground work before I can share what I realized this morning (Aug. 16). I'll do that by posing a few rhetorical questions:

Can one be a Muslim without believing in the Koran?
Can one be Hindu without believing in the Bagivad Gita?
Is a Jew a Jew if he or she does not believe in the Torah?
Likewise, can one be a Christian if one does not believe in the teachings of the Bible?

In the early 1500's there was a movement called "Reformed Christianity." What is Reformed Christianity? For one thing it was :

"...a return to faithful doctrines which had become corrupt under a system of authorities of men, orders, unethical regulations, ostentatious ceremonies, and unbiblical traditions produced by ecumenical councils."

It's purpose was to:

"bring the doctrines of the Church back into agreement (thus the word, Reformed) with the truths written in the law of Holy Canon."

Tony Warren, in his essay on Reformed Christianity, shares that:

"God's Word is the anchor and foundation of any true Church, and man's subjection to it is essential. Thus these faithful men of old were convinced that true and proper worship of God requires a strong rejection of every doctrine that is contrary to His divinely inspired Word. However, the Roman Church rejected this principle and held steadfastly to rule of Church hierarchy and traditions of men over both the scriptures, and the Church. Noted Theologian Martin Luther, who understood this error of usurping authority from God, took the stand that is often looked upon as the watershed of the Reformation. For all intents and purposes, he started the Historical Reformation movement in 1517 when he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg."

Further in Luther's Address To The Nobility of the German Nation, 1520, he complains that councils have become of no value and might just as well be done away with all together:

"...so that they would have the Pope alone over them as is indeed the case now; he deprives bishops, archbishops, and primates of all the authority of their office, taking everything to himself, and leaving them only the name and the empty title; more than this, by his exemption he has withdrawn convents, abbots, and prelates from the ordinary authority of the bishops, so that there remains no order in Christendom. The necessary result of this must be, and has been, laxity in punishing and such a liberty to do evil in all the world that I very much fear one might call the Pope "the man of sin" (2 Thess. ii. 3). Who but the Pope is to blame for this absence of all order, of all punishment, of all government, of all discipline, in Christendom? By his own arbitrary power he ties the hands of all his prelates, and takes from them their rods, while all their subjects have their hands unloosed, and obtain licence by gift or purchase."

Now, you might be asking why this is pertinent to a discussion on the divisiveness taking place today in the Christian Community? I'll tell you why it is pertinent, because if, as Tony Warren states and Martin Luther believed that "God's Word is the anchor and foundation of any true Church, and man's subjection to it is essential." If, as Martin Luther believed in 1520 and beyond, that "no order in Christendom" results in a "laxity in punishing and" a "liberty to do evil" then all of the discussions I have had in the past with "Progressive" Christians who do not believe in an inerrant Bible (albeit today perhaps not the original manuscript referred to by Luther) becomes VERY pertinent to any discussion on polarization of the Christian community. Is it this "Progressive" Christian failure to believe in the inerrancy of God's Word that causes the division or is it the "Conservative/Evangelical/Fundamentalist" Christians' responsibility because they remain true to Tony Warren's belief and the flavor of Martin Luther's Reformation, that "God's Word is the anchor and foundation of any true Church, and man's subjection to it is essential?"

And so, to change the subject slightly, let's take the example of The Emergent or Emerging Church as a study regarding deviance from "God's Word as the anchor or foundation of ANY true Church: Wikipedia describes it this way:

"The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement within Protestant Christianity that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture."

Not all "Progressive" Christians are members of an Emergent or Emerging Church and not all "Progressive" Christians fail to believe in an inerrant Bible but most of the Progressive Christians, with whom I debated, argue about basic tenets of the Bible in ways that could not be considered anything but twisting words and taking words out of context in an effort to excuse behaviors which they would like to support or enjoy, behaviors which God's Word tells us are sinful.

In God's Word it is clear that God hated sexual promiscuity, ANY sexual promiscuity, whether engaged in through fornication, which would include unmarried couples whether they be gay or heterosexual, or adultery. It is clear from scripture that God valued the life of the innocent unborn, even knitting them together in the mother's womb. These are Biblical tenets. These Biblical tenets divide people today. The scripture divides people, why should that come as a surprise? God's Word has always divided people.

In the emergent church they have no explicitly defined leadership, no explicitly defined direction, no explicitly defined doctrine. Martin Luther might say that "there remains no order in Christendom. The necessary result of this must be, and has been, laxity in punishing and such a liberty to do evil in all the world." Martin Luther asked: "Who but the Pope is to blame for this absence of all order, of all punishment, of all government, of all discipline, in Christendom?" Today, would he ask "Who but the" New Age/Emergent/Progressive Christian "is to blame for this absence of all order, of all punishment, of all government, of all discipline, in Christendom?"


What occurred to me this morning was this:

If one believes that "the Word of God is living and active," that it is "sharper than any two-edged sword" and pierces "even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow," (Hebrews 4:12) then one must realize that it is God's Holy Word which divides men from one another, Christians from non-Christians, truth from falsehood, right from wrong, sin from good works and yes, "Progressive" Christians from "Conservative" Christians.

"Conservative/Evangelical/Fundamentalist" Christians generally believe that the Bible is true, that it is inerrant. If one does not at least believe that the Bible is true as it relays the story of the Gospel of Christ how can one be expected to entertain the idea of believing on Him, accepting his sacrifice for our sin, washing us clean with His blood?

It is the fundamental belief in an inerrant Bible which defines sin absolutely and without question which divides "Conservative" Christians from "Progressive" Christians who appear to be somewhat fuzzy about whether one who practices the gay lifestyle is sinning because it feels natural to him or her to sexually love a partner of the same sex.

It is the fundamental belief in an inerrant Bible which defines sin absolutely and without question which divides "Conservative" Christians from "Progressive" Christians who are fuzzy about whether one who chooses to kill a child still in the womb has murdered one of God's creations or not.

The acceptance or non-acceptance of gay marriage and abortion are pivotal issues which divide "Progressive" from "Conservative" Christians and if there is not a realization among "Progressive" Christians that, as Tony Warren stated and Martin Luther believed "God's Word is the anchor and foundation of any true Church, and man's subjection to it is essential," they will continue to separate themselves from Believer's who still believe in the same tenets that Martin Luther first espoused when he pinned his 95 Theses on the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg.

The first two "Fundamental Beliefs of Reformed Christianity:"

1). We accept without question that the 66 books of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments, are the divinely inspired Words of God to man (Psalm 119:160).

2). We believe that the Bible in it's original manuscript, is infallible, and thus the ultimate authority for the Christian Church today (2nd Timothy 3:16).

So, can one be a Christian and not hold a belief in an inerrant Bible? Martin Luther didn't think so:

"Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the pope nor the councils alone, it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the Word of God: I cannot and will not recant any thing against the conscience." ~ "Luther," "before the royal diet in the city of Worms on April 18, 1521"

On the morning of August 16, what I realized was that the Bible is as divisive today as it has always been. The Bible does not tolerate sin. The Bible tells us how God feels about sin. We either accept the Word of God as true, as useful for instruction, as the "anchor and foundation of any true Church," or we do not.

Of necessity, if one does not believe in an inerrant Bible and consider it the guidebook for the Christian life it separates him from the one who does believe in an inerrant Bible, from the one who does consider it the guidebook for the Christian life. It is not "Conservative" Christians who are intolerant of sin and it's practice, it is GOD who is intolerant of sin and its practice. The Holy Bible is intolerant of sin and it is still the lightening rod of controversy which it has been since early Christians first shared it with unbelievers.

When Christians politically attack each other they do not attack each other so much as they attack the precepts and tenets of the Bible. The same Bible which Martin Luther was "conquered" by when he said "my conscience is bound in the Word of God," We would all do well to remember our "anchor and foundation."

All that said, only God knows the heart(s) of man. Only I can know my heart and God in it. I leave my readers, once again, not in a spirit of divisiveness but in a spirit of concern over the division among people who claim the moniker of Christian and yet have such bitterness in their hearts for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ...whether those Christians are politically progressive or politically conservative they should not seek to divide themselves from their brothers and sisters, rather they should hold fast to the Holy Scripture:

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[a] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[b] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. BibleGateway.com: 1 John 4:7-11

I'm Working on Something....

...having to do with the polarization of the Christian Community. It is taking me longer than I'd like but it's necessary. Keep checking back with me...hopefully I'll be finished with it in the next day or two.

"Hannah's Prayer"

Last night I started meditating on Hannah's Prayer. There is much meat to be found there. There is praise, thanksgiving, humility, sacrifice (as she was praying before giving Samuel to Eli, the Priest as she had vowed to do before the LORD), vengeance...let me know if you find more in these verses. I welcome comments on Hannah's Prayer because I intend to meditate on it until led otherwise.

Hannah's Prayer

1 Samuel 2:1-10

And Hannah prayed and said:

"My heart rejoices in the LORD;

My horn is exalted in the LORD.

I smile at my enemies,

Because I rejoice in Your salvation.

"No one is holy like the LORD,

For there is none besides You,

Nor is there any rock like our God.

"Talk no more so very proudly;

Let no arrogance come from your mouth,

For the LORD is the God of knowledge;

And by Him actions are weighed.

"The bows of the mighty men are broken,

And those who stumbled are girded with strength.

"Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread,

And the hungry have ceased to hunger.

Even the barren has borne seven,

And she who has many children has become feeble.

"The LORD kills and makes alive;

He brings down to the grave and brings up.

The LORD makes poor and makes rich;

He brings low and lifts up.

He raises the poor from the dust

And lifts the beggar from the ash heap,

To set them among princes

And make them inherit the throne of glory.

"For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's

And He has set the world upon them.

He will guard the feet of His saints,

But the wicked shall be silent in darkness.

"For by strength no man shall prevail.

The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken into pieces;

From heaven He will thunder against them.

The LORD will judge the ends of the earth.

"He will give strength to His king,

And exalt the horn of His annointed."

1 Samuel 2

I emboldened the part that really spoke to me last night.

Sign Grassfire.org's FairTax Petition!

Ian, a member of the new Yahoo group, Bill H.R.25 / S 25 Support Group, sent the message a few moments ago that he had gotten Grassfire.org on board with a petition drive! Here's the e-mail:

"I've been asking Grassfire.org to put the FairTax on the front burner, and LO AND BEHOLD - IT'S HERE (see below).

FairTaxers, click the link below and JOIN Grassfire.org's efforts (they're highly media visible) to lobby for the FairTax.

Also, send them a NOTE thanking them for HELPING TO SET THE FAIR TAX MOVEMENT "ON FIRE" throughout America.

-Ian"

From Grassfire.org Alliance++

Your immediate action requested (see details below)

The time has come to end the tyrannical and oppressive tax system that is slowly draining the lifeblood of our nation.

That's why Grassfire has launched an aggressive petitioncampaign to demanding our leaders adopt a more progressiveFair Tax system. Click here for more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Fair Tax: An idea whose Time has come

Our dwindling workforce can no longer carry the ever-increasing tax burden. By scrapping the current, antiquated system, and adopting a consumer-based FairTax system, Americans would be given control of their tax burden!

In other words, you would keep 100 percent of your paycheck. Your savings and investments would never be taxed, and all current forms of federal taxation would end.

Additionally, such a system would create more jobs, and give the U.S. a level playing field when selling overseas.

Read more about the Fair Tax and how it can benefit you by clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Calling on Grassroots America

While the Fair Tax isn’t in anyone's immediate future, we believe we can make this an Election Year issue. If grassroots Americans begin to raise their voices and begin demanding an end to the tax oppression, we can advance the Fair Tax cause!

Our goal over the next 60 days is to rally a minimum of100,000 citizen petitions. Once we reach that goal, we can get the attention of lawmakers on Capitol Hill--including Sen. Chambliss, Rep. Linder and others who support the Fair Tax Act of 2005.

We need you to step up and become a leader in this cause by adding your name to our national "Fair Tax" petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.aspu=1016&rid=11106505

Thank you for being such an integral part of all we do atGrassfire, and be sure to read our latest Grassroots Alert!

Grassfire.org Alliance

P.S: In 60 days, must have at least 100,000 signatures to present to key leadership. Please add your name today and alert your friends to take action with you. + +

Sign our "Fair Tax" Petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.aspu=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Read latest Grassroots Alert: The "Fair Tax": An idea whosetime has come: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

For more on this and other Grassfire issues: http://www.grassfire.org

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Grassfire.org Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day.

Gifts to Grassfire.org are not tax deductible.+ +

Comments? Questions?http://www.grassfire.org/email.asp?ind=10

FELLOW "FAIRTAXERS" UNITE!!!

Important Announcement:

There is a NEW "FairTax" Yahoo Group in town! I'd like to recommend that anyone, from anywhere in the country who is either a FairTax supporter or would like to learn more about the "FairTax" to visit: Bill H.R.25 / S 25 Support Group and request an invitation! In this group questions may be asked and a network of supporters will be there to help each other answer them. There's POWER in numbers, folks!

Here is the description of the group:

This group has been established as an open forum for grassroots "FairTax" supporters to meet without the contraints of working under AFFT, who must abide by IRS regulations and laws pertaining to a 501c non-profit group.

This is a completely open forum to discuss and advance Bill HR 25/S 25 to the President's desk for signature. Your ideas, research and voice is coveted. The owner wishes you to feel free to discuss political candidates, elections and endorse candidates, post articles and research information and share promotional ideas concerning the Bill known as the FairTax Act of 2005.

Feel free to discuss and report on this site how you perceive the FairTax to eliminate problems such as illegal immigration, Social Security funding, leveling the playing field in foreign trade, etc.

Your e-mail will not be limited here and there will be no complaints about the volume of e-mail sent. If any member has a problem with the volume of e-mail let it be known when you become a member you will be responsible for your own e-mail settings, you may opt to receive every e-mail or a weekly digest, it is each member's personal responsibility to limit their own e-mail as they desire.

As a group, we will try to address questions concerning issues pertaining to the Bill. Senators, Congressmen, State Representatives, Legislators and their staff are all welcome and members are encouraged to invite them and other supporters. This is not a State group, but an National group.

Join TODAY!

Progressives are Losing the Argument, OBVIOUSLY

Neal Boortz reports on Nealz Nuze today, under the topic of "Olbermann's Nazi Salute," that:

"...there's one thing that he's (Olbermann's) finally being called to account over. And that's his use of the Nazi salute when pretending to be Bill O'Reilly. The implication is that Fox News is really a Nazi propaganda machine. Always remember the following template when it comes to liberals. If a liberal has lost an argument and has absolutely nothing left to say, they will call their opponent a Nazi. The Democrats have been doing it to George Bush for 5 1/2 years.

But those who are offended by Olbermann's tactics have gotten tired of it. So the Anti-Defamation League fired off a letter to Olbermann which read, in part:

"As a respected and well-known media personality, your actions have consequences and can set a standard for others to emulate. We are especially concerned that young people viewing your program might take their cues from your free use of the "Sieg Heil" salute.""

So, I'm surfing around the net today, hitting some blogs and what do I come across? Why, I come across Bob at I am a Christian Too, he's posted an entry, » Conservatives Without Conscience: Christians and Earthly Authority, in which he discusses John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, here'a a snippet:

Dean is a Goldwater Republican who finds that most beliefs held by Bush conservatives run directly counter to his traditional conservatism (you know, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, avoiding international adventurism that conservatism.) When he went looking for an explanation for this tectonic shift, he came across some academic studies trying to understand why so many Germans followed Hitler's immoral rule during WWII. A lone madman like Hitler is one thing. A large segment of the population willing to follow a Hitler or a Mussolini is another. Where was their conscience?

These psychological studies developed a profile of the type of person likely to participate in immoral actions merely because a strong leader tells them to. These authoritarians tend to be submissive to authority and in favor of punishing the declared enemies of the authorities. Authoritarians conform to conventional behaviors, are hostile to minorities, and view themselves as more moral than others. They also aren't very self-aware; it's difficult for them to see their actions from outside the context of the authoritarian structure.

As you might expect, conservative Christians tend to score highly on this scale.

Yeah, sure, Bob. We might expect a progressive Christian to try to compare Conservatives to Nazis and those who followed like blind sheep as Hitler committed genocide. Of course, in doing so we would ignore the very real Nazis in the world today, like the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who as CNN.com reports:

"...Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world.

"The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA....

... Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.""

There is a fascism raising it's head today, but author John Dean, Bob at I am a Christian Too and other Progressive/Democrat's like him and Keith Olbermann would have us believe that these terrorist fascists who seek to invoke another holocaust on Israel are a minority group who should be protected from the evil neo-conservative "Crusade." Puhleaaase.

As Neal said: "If a liberal has lost an argument and has absolutely nothing left to say, they will call their opponent a Nazi."

To quote the churchlady from Saturday Night Live: "Isn't that special?"

Who Will Pay the Price for Bill HR 25?

It's needless to say that I am somewhat let down after the primary election.

I was particularly pulling for Jeff Parnell and Michael Goodart. I only hope that they will run again in the future and we'll get 'em next time guys!

There has to come a time when voting is not all about name recognition and money. These last few years there have been many divisive issues which have faced us but none so polarizing as the Iraq war and none so impassioned as the immigration issue.

It is my heart's desire to see people become as impassioned and active in support of Bill HR 25/S 25 as they have been about the immigration issue, particularly. There are very few issues which Americans are interested in which the "FairTax" Bill will not impact upon becoming law.

For years now good Americans have supported the Bill by signing petitions and working as grassroots volunteers for Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) but there are rumblings of discontent among AFFT volunteers as we are feeling more and more stifled by rules and regulations which hamper the cause of educating and watching this Bill be pushed into law.

Most recently, with the advent of FairTax Yahoo Groups, volunteers in each State have come together but under the umbrella and watchful eye of AFFT. Because AFFT is a 501c non-profit group which lobbies Congress they cannot endorse any politician. They, and I too, don't get me wrong, want the Bill to be a non-partisan issue but, frankly, it just isn't working. Democrats are suspicious of anything which has more support from Republican pundits than Democrat pundits and it is the natural inclination of Democrats to pit themselves against anything which has garnered a great deal of Republican support. Volunteers who would like to campaign and support candidates, primarily Republican and Libertarian, because they support the Bill are kept from doing so by AFFT. AFFT has no choice, being the 501c lobbyist group that they are.

Another complaint communicated by many "FairTax" volunteers regarding the Yahoo Groups is that they were set up to be a way for volunteers to encourage one another and communicate ideas but in many cases and in many different groups mail volume has been discouraged. How can volunteers encourage one another when moderators of these groups complain and discourage them from sharing their ideas with one another and posting to one another? These moderators exercise such censorship control over the volunteers that they have, over the years, discouraged many members who have, as a result, left the group and ceased from promoting the Bill.

Many volunteers are now in private discussions about ways that we can continue to support the Bill without such close association with AFFT because we feel that as American citizens who are not paid staff or employees of AFFT that our free speech and expression rights are being trampled by the very organization who has brought the "FairTax" to the state of recognition which it now enjoys. Many of us feel it is time to bring the promotion to a new level wherein grassroots VOLUNTEER supporters of the Bill are no longer encumbered and held back by the IRS tax rules which stifle AFFT's actions. In other words, it is time for grassroots supporters to break out, leave the stifling guidance of AFFT's watchful eye and make our own waves, without censorship from a group governed by IRS laws and regulations. We are American citizens, individuals, who have every right to discuss who we will support or not support in the political arena based on their support or non-support of HR 25/S25.

I recently attended the FairTax Seminar in Springfield, Missouri and I greatly enjoyed it. It's time to go forth and use what we know to further the cause of the "FairTax." If that means voting a Roy Blunt out of office to do so then that's what we should do. If that means showing a Jim Talent that IF, as the rumor mill has it, he supports the Bill but will not/cannot announce his support until after the election...well, what does that tell us? That he doesn't really support the bill enough to stand up for it during an election cycle?

Many "FairTaxers" are one issue voters, if a candidate will not endorse and support the Bill then they do not want to endorse or support the candidate. I am NOT a one issue voter, myself, but Bill HR 25/S 25 is ONE of the many issues I look at when deciding who I will vote for and I look at that first, then among "FairTax" supporting candidates I choose the one which most aligns with my political viewpoint. I am becoming more of an independent voter all the time. What does this mean this November? It means that Republicans who do not support the "FairTax" had better start taking note.

Nationwide there are approximately 700,000 Bill HR 25/S 25 supporters, and that is only those supporters who have signed a petition with AFFT or joined a Yahoo Group, that tells me there are many more supporters who are uncounted. If I must vote for a Libertarian who will support the "FairTax" and is not ashamed to announce it as opposed to a Republican who will not come out in support of it until AFTER the election I will definitely consider doing so. I have become consistently less and less impressed with the political status quo and I do not think I am alone. Politicians take note, you WILL either start listening to and representing your base or you WILL pay a price.

Spotlight on Bernard Kennetz, Jr., Primary Opponent in the 7th District and FairTax Supporter

Dr. Bernard Kennetz, Jr is running in the Republican primary for Roy Blunt's seat in the 7th District of Missouri. He makes a good argument (kennetzforcongress.com) for change. Here is a quote from Kennetz on taxation:

Income Tax: There is no justification for a compulsory income tax when there are other options. Citizens must be given choice, freewill, freedom, when that is in the realm of possibilities. A national sales tax is a completely volitional tax. The citizen makes the choice, not his/her government. There are no legal loopholes. The income tax should, and must be abolished if America is to remain a moral country living up to its ideals. It must be replaced with the national sales tax where all people are treated equally under the law.

Dr. Kennetz is a petition signer and supporter of the Fair Tax Bill, HR 25/S 25.

Jeff Parnell ~ Hardy Campaigner

(Check out Jeff Parnell for U.S. Congress - Missouri's 4th District - Home for pictures and a recap of Jeff's visit to "Hermitage at an event hosted by the Hickory County Republican women.")

I felt since there were some unfounded accusations being hurled at Jeff Parnell, Republican primary candidate for the 4th district in Missouri, in the comment section of my recent blog on the fight for the 4th district primary that I should address them formally.

An anonymous commentator is claiming that Mr. Parnell has done nothing to campaign for his seat, that all he has done is work in his tire shop (a necessity for a man with a family and household expenses, as most Missourians realize) and play music.

The fact is that Mr. Parnell has campaigned vigorously and taken a hands on approach, rather than spending a lot of his own resources on signage or a big campaign bus.

I sent Mr. Parnell an e-mail query about where he has campaigned, here is just a partial listing of the towns and cities he has visited and from where he has spoken regarding his campaign, it was considerate of Mr. Parnell to provide me with this personal answer to my query as I know that today, of all days, he must be very busy, as a matter of fact, he is speaking this evening in Hermitage, Missouri:

Lamar
Nevada
Butler
Harrisonville
Marshfield
Jefferson City
California
Wheatland
Camdenton
Osage Beach
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Further, Mr. Parnell stated in his e-mail reply that he has it on good authority that Mr. Conner did not attend some events because he knew that Mr. Parnell was going to be there and would be performing his music, which Parnell both writes and performs.

If Mr. Parnell is such a poor candidate one would have to question why the Kansas City Star endorsed him as the best candidate, writing:

Four conservative Republicans, however, are on the 4th District ballot. The best choice appears to be Jeff Parnell, a small-business owner from Rogersville who also sought the nomination two years ago.

Parnell is well-informed on a range of issues and expresses considerable enthusiasm for cleaning up the fiscal mess in Washington. He also emphasizes strict border security.

Also in the race are James A. Noland, Alan Conner and Lloyd D. Sanders Sr.

Noland, a former state legislator, has repeatedly sought the
congressional seat with odd statements and poorly thought-out positions.

Connor, a farmer and businessman who has not previously sought political office, has mounted a vigorous campaign.

But he shows poor judgment, for example, in attacking judicial
independence — a cornerstone of American democracy.

Sanders, a minister and political novice, offers appropriate criticism of shoddy Washington ethics but is vague on other issues.

Some people have money to throw around on a campaign and some people have vision and common sense and can win on the issues. It is a false charge to say that Mr. Parnell has done NOTHING to campaign, he has worked very hard in this campaign without requiring a large bankroll to do so while managing a business in the process. This is the sort of financial conservatism and multi-tasking management we need in Jefferson City.

I support and endorse Jeff Parnell.

Spotlight on Michael Goodart, FairTax Supporter

Michael Goodart is running in the 138th district of Missouri in the Republican primary. He is a graduate of Missouri State University with a B. S. in Political Science and minored in Finance and General Business. Mr. Goodart worked as an intern for Majority Whip Chuck Purgason in 2003. He is a charismatic young man with great communication skills, as I witnessed when listening to his debate with his primary opponent Steve Helms: stevehelms.net (According to the Springfield News-Leader "Helms does not dispute... that in 2003 he filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, reporting $767,079 in debt, including more than $100,000 in credit card debt.")

Mr. Goodart is an avid supporter of the Fair Tax, Bill HR 25/S 25. I have heard few people better able to articulate the benefits of the FairTax than Mr. Goodart. When I listened to the debate between Mr. Goodart and Mr. Helms on the Vincent David Jericho Show, which is on KSGF Monday through Friday from 6:00 to 9:00 am, it became clear to me that Michael Goodart is the stronger advocate for the FairTax of the two primary opponents. While Helms claims to support it, it seemed to me that he spent much of his time arguing against the FairTax while Goodart spent his time arguing in support of it.

If you would like to learn more about Mr. Goodart's stands on issues such as the FairTax, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Personal Responsibility and Business and what he would do to work for Missouri, please visit his website. I cannot remember being more impressed with a young politician as I am with this fine young man.

A Voice, Not an Echo

Following is an email letter which was sent out to Alan Conner's constituents. It was forwarded to me yesterday:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2006

Media Contact: Mike Lodewegen, Campaign Manager
(417)830-4350"

As we all know, anyone can file suit against anybody. The suit filed by Mrs. Noland is now in the hands of attorneys on both sides. I will not be surprised if this suit is dropped after we win the primary Tuesday.

We will be busy for the next four days campaigning as we are in this
Congressional race to win. Thank you for your continued support."

Your Republican Candidate for Congress, Alan Conner

For more information visit ConnerforCongress.com

Paid for by: Missourians for Alan Conner, Aaron Hunter, Treasurer "

I sent an e-mail query to Mr. Conner yesterday but it was not delivered because Mr. Conner's e-mail in-box was full. I guess many people had questions for Mr. Conner yesterday.

As I mentioned in reply to a Conner supporter in the comment section of my previous blog entry, The Fight for the 4th District Republican Primary, politics has been TOO much about money and not enough about issues and causes, it is time for a fresh face, and that face is Jeff Parnell. Mr. Noland has tried to beat Ike Skelton over and over again, he wasn't up to the task in the past, perhaps Jeff Parnell will be.

People all over the country are tired of the status quo. We are tired of wealthy Americans buying their way into their Statehouses and Washington, D.C. We are ready for the common man who is in touch with his base, the common man who knows first hand the plight of working hard to keep milk in the refrigerator and bread on the kitchen counter, the common man who struggles in the heat to do a good honest day's work to provide for his family, the common man who has not been so removed from the people that he can no longer represent them because he can no longer identify with them, himself. A common man with common sense. A voice, not an echo. That common man, that voice, is Jeff Parnell.

"Fine sense, and exalted sense, are not half as useful as common sense.--There are forty men of wit to one man of sense.--He that will carry nothing about him but gold, will be every day at a loss for readier change." ~Pope.

The Fight for the 4th District Republican Primary

As a Fair Tax supporter, I have been watching the primary race in the 4th District of Missouri with interest. One of the Republican primary candidates is Jeff Parnell.

Parnell recently performed his original song "Perhaps We Need a Tea Party Again" at the Orlando, Florida FairTax Babe Pancake Breakfast, as announced by Neal Boortz at boortz.com July 21, 2006. View the Slideshow of that event on July 29, 2006 prior to the FairTax Rally. The Rally was attended by between 10,000 to 12,000 people according to the Orlando, Florida Police Dept. :)

I have been told by sources close to the 4th District primary campaign that one of his primary opponents, Alan Conner, wanted to drop out of the race but waited too late to take his name off the ballot so is forced to run for a seat he, evidently, doesn't want. Alan Conner, according to the News-Leader is now being sued by the wife of another Republican primary opponent, Mrs. Janice Noland, wife of primary candidate Jim Noland, claims that Conner made threats to her over the telephone. According to the News-Leader " Janice Noland alleges that businessman Alan Conner called her in mid-July demanding to talk. When she refused and hung up, the lawsuit claims, Conner called back and left a threatening message on her answering machine, saying, "I will bring you down."" Mrs. Noland also "alleges Conner also threatened to sue her and report her to the Missouri Bar." These events prompted Jeff Parnell to issue this response for immediate release:

"While some in Missouri's 4th District Congressional Republican primary
allegedly engage in malicious threats and other bad behaviors, I continue to be
the only candidate actively involved in policy change on a national level, most
notably my work in raising awareness about the Fair Tax."

Last week, I traveled to Orlando, Florida to participate in a Fair Tax
Rally which drew between 10,000 - 12,000 people; I emceed an event and
performed my song Perhaps We Need A Tea Party Again; was recognized on
Neal Boortz' nationwide radio program, and appeared on statewide radio in
Florida. I also made appearances on radio in Springfield and gave numerous
interviews as a result of the event. In short, I am working hard on issues
that I believe will be good for Missouri and America.

When voters in the 4th District go to the polls Tuesday, I hope they will
not be dazzled by Washington D.C. Style Pork-Barrel Campaigning, or vote for any
candidate who cannot control himself or his temper."

I don't know about the 4th District but I am tired of childish politicians who cannot work together reasonably on behalf of their constituents and in the best interest of same. Both Conner and Noland appear unable to even run in a primary contest without resorting to schoolyard antics.

The 4th District of Missouri voters have an opportunity to select a candidate who has actively worked a business in Springfield, MO, Parnell Tire, consecutively while running a clean campaign promoting interest in policy issues which not only would work to better the lives of Missourians but Americans Nationwide. I wholeheartedly endorse Jeff Parnell. I hope after reading this entry those of you in the 4th District will, as well.

In closing, I'll let Jeff speak for himself regarding the Fair Tax Act:

"Perhaps We Need a Tea Party Again"

Lyrics and music by: Jeff Parnell

One night in Boston Harbor, the tea flew overboard.
They said, "We don't owe King George a thing, we answer to our Lord."
They built this land of freedom, but things have changed since then.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

They passed the 16th amendment, and the income tax was law.
But it punishes achievement, and that's just one of many flaws.
Then along came withholding, we don't know what we pay in.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

There's a better way to pay the bills, and the Fair Tax is its name.
We can fully fund this government, and end these silly games.
We can save Social Security, and Medicare it's true.
And the Congress needs to hear all this from You.

Career politicians love the power of tax and spend.
And it's time that all of us take a stand and reign them in.
This country is worth saving, and I'm telling you my friends,
"Perhaps we need a tea party again."

There's a better way to pay the bills, and the Fair Tax is its name.
We can fully fund this government, and end these silly games.
We can save Social Security, and Medicare it's true.
But the Congress needs to hear all this from You.

One night in Boston Harbor, the tea flew overboard.
They said, "We don't owe King George a thing, we answer to our Lord."
We built this land of freedom, but much has changed since then.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update on this story: Lake Sun Leader has an article on the law suit brought by Mrs. Janice Noland against Mr. Conner. Here's a quote:

Conner said last week he is the only credible candidate in the primary race. His campaign has raised $343,000, according to The AP, $138,000 of which he spent on a campaign bus to travel around the 25-county district, which includes the Lake of the Ozarks.

Also running in the primary are Jeff Parnell of Rogersville, and the Rev. Lloyd Sanders of Richland.

While some candidates in this primary allegedly engage in malicious threats, I continue to be the only candidate actively involved in policy change on a national level, Parnell said Saturday in an e-mail to the Lake Sun.

“When voters ... go to the polls Tuesday, I hope they will not be dazzled by Washington D.C.-style pork-barrel campaigning, or vote for any candidate who cannot control himself or his temper,” Parnell said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional update: Check out: Ozarks Newsstand - Candidate Jim Noland's wife files suit against Alan Conner

Rev. Timothy Simpson, Promoting Propaganda by Proxy

I’ve noticed a lot of action from the “Progressive” Christian community on the internet and in the streets lately. I’ve seen billboards that say “Would Jesus discriminate?” popping up around the city, put there by self-proclaimed “progressive Christians” who apparently believe recognizing sin as sin is the same thing as “discriminating.”

Now I find in my mail a piece written by Reverend Timothy F. Simpson from the Christian Alliance for Progress, http://www.christianalliance.org/, titled, “The President Turns a Blind Eye to the Suffering and Death of Americans.”

Well, if LYING can be considered progress, the “progressive Christians” are certainly progressing!

Rev. Simpson suggests that by vetoing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the President will cause “…the early deaths and unnecessary suffering of millions of Americans.” He further opines that the President’s decision was “irrational” and evidence that “America is under the sway of theocrats whose obsession for ideological purity outweighs their concern for America's, and the world's, sick and dying.”

Let’s look at the reality of this issue. EMBRYONIC (I must emphasize that adjective as the “Progressives,” like the good Rev. Simpson, conveniently leave this very important qualifier out of their propag….er, arguments) stem cells have not cured one disease. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In fact, EMBRYONIC stem cells, in the treatment of animals, have either done nothing for the malady which researchers were attempting to treat, or worse, it made the lab animals receiving them DEAD.

EMBRYONIC stem cells are attractive to researchers because they’re thought to be “pluripotent”, which means, in essence, that the cells have not made up their little minds what kind of specialized cell they’d like to be when they grow up. This, theoretically, opens the path for researchers to train them to become whatever kind of specialized cell a researcher could want. This hasn’t happened. EMBRYONIC stem cells, instead of being told to grow up specializing in this or that by researchers, have a mind of their own….forming bone inside recipients’ brains, or tumors, oftentimes fatal, wherever they please. EMBRYONIC stem cells don’t take instruction well at all.

ADULT stem cells, however, DO.

ADULT and CORD BLOOD (very important adjectives, setting these cells apart from embryonic stem cells in that they are not harvested by killing human embryos, and denoting the fact that different kinds of stem cells exist, something “progressives” conveniently overlook) stem cells possess more pluripotent properties, like those thought to be possessed by EMBRYONIC stem cells, than researchers ever thought possible. They can grow into specialized cells apart from that in which they’ve already specialized. Treatment with these stem cells is much less risky than treatment with the unruly EMBRYONIC stem cells, cells which can only be obtained by killing a human embryo, a.k.a. a baby.

Further, ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells are currently being used to treat more than 70 different diseases. We are treating cancer, cardiovascular diseases, auto-immune diseases, neurological diseases, blood diseases and conditions, various injuries, including spinal, wounds, and a whole host of other debilitating diseases and conditions with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells. Unlike EMBRYONIC stem cells, treatment with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells has shown real progress for real people with real diseases. Unlike EMBRYONIC stem cells, treatments with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells have proven effective.

To recap:

EMBRYONIC stem cells have not cured one disease and have caused the death of many test animals upon the administration of these stem cells.

ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells are currently being used to treat 72 different diseases and conditions, with approximately 300 trials showing promise for treatment of other diseases and conditions currently underway.

The scorecard for EMBRYONIC v. ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells is:

EMBRYONIC – 0
ADULT/CORD BLOOD - 72

See the difference?

The good Reverend Timothy F. Simpson hopes you don’t.

Taking this reality into account, it makes perfect sense that President Bush would veto federal funding for research that has, thus far, proven to be a failure. The hype of the past decade regarding EMBRYONIC stem cell research was just that….hype…..hype which overshadowed the miraculous breakthroughs and progress in the fields of ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cell research, the research fields most deserving of federal funds. Even so, EMBRYONIC stem cell research continues, just not with federal funds beyond that which was previously allowed on existing lines. The President's veto did not put an end to all EMBRYONIC stem cell research as the good Reverend would have you believe.

In light of this, it seems the only one obsessed with ideological purity and theocracy is Reverend Timothy F. Simpson. He obfuscates the debate by blending ALL stem cell research into one category, pretending that lack of federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research will cause death and suffering, as though it has been useful in preventing those things previously (it has not); by ignoring the fact that EMBRYONIC stem cells haven't successfully treated one disease, condition or ailment; and, further, he wants the federal government to fund the killing of human embryos even though it is against the morals of many taxpayers. To him, and those like him, religion and morals are good so long as they are THEIR morals and THEIR religion. Anything else is deserving of demonization and lies.

Reverend Simpson bemoaning another’s obsession with ideological purity is like the KKK’s Grand Kleagle lamenting the racists in his midst.

Showing concern for the world's sick and dying does not entail what the good Reverend gives us - slickness and lying.

An Open Letter to Americans For Fair Taxation

Dear Leo Linbeck, Tom Wright, Genie Hayes, and anyone else it concerns,

A few short weeks ago my husband and I watched with participatory satisfaction, the Senate vote down the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611).

It is my belief that if it were not for the completely grassroots organized and unorganized outcry of opponents of this amnesty bill that it would have sailed through the Senate. I believe that the grassroots effort of millions of Americans, who were sending faxes, letters, emails and making phone calls to their local and State Representatives, Senators and radio stations regarding the "Amnesty legislation," as well as local protests across the Nation crying for our government to secure our borders in the interest of National security, is solely responsible for getting the attention of those Senators, causing them to sit up and take notice of what the people they represented wanted done and/or would not accept from their Senators.

With this in mind I would like to take to task Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) for trying to keep grassroots supporters of the FairTax bill from voicing their opinions and demanding that the FairTax, Bill HR 25, become law.

My husband has been very active in supporting the FairTax. At every turn he is met with someone from AFFT who will tell him that this is not the way it is done, or that is not the way it is done. Enough! This is a free country!

While AFFT is a 501c organization, the average citizen grassroots supporter who is NOT on your staff, who is NOT a PAID EMPLOYEE of your organization, is in no way bound by the laws by which that 501c organization is bound, further, AFFT, itself, as a 501c organization, is in a position to fear the IRS, the very government agency which they would like to put out of business. Every action AFFT takes must be considered in light of their abiding of the laws of taxation in our Nation.

The staff and paid employees of AFFT are LOBBYISTS to Congress. If the passage of the FairTax Bill is successful their organization will roll up the sidewalks and go home. In short, their paid staff and paid employees will be OUT OF A JOB. This leaves me to question their intentions, right or wrong.

I am tired of the very organization which was put in place to support the FairTax Bill holding down its supporters, trying to restrict the free speech rights of their supporters and making an effort to keep them under their thumbs. The day that they begin to pay a salary or hourly wage to all of their grassroots supporters is the day they can begin to expect those grassroots supporters to abide by their policies and not a day sooner. For a long time we have honored the wishes of AFFT in its promotion of the FairTax Bill, but the Bill does not seem to get enough steam to become law, the next thing we know there is a NEW Congress and the effort must be started all over again. It is a vicious cycle and appears to be going nowhere under the current policy of promotion.

Regarding the upcoming Orlando, Florida FairTax Rally which is featured at Neal Boortz's blog : 580wdbo.com: Event Guide Neal Boortz Fair Tax Rally, my husband has called Orlando's local radio station with a couple of suggestions and questions. A paid lobbyist for AFFT has just called to let my husband know that it is "causing confusion" when he calls and that AFFT has a policy that only one person from the organization may contact the station. My husband obliged that request. I'll tell you what I would have said to this lobbyist: "The day you are paying me a wage for my opinions, thoughts and ideas regarding FairTax support and promotion is the day that I will abide by your organization's policies."

It is my personal belief that AFFT holds back the cause of the FairTax grassroot supporters. If the treatment my husband has received is any indication of the actions taken by AFFT in an effort to silence the vocal support for the Bill HR 25 then this may be the very reason, or at least a contributory factor, that the FairTax Bill cannot get the support of Senators and therefore passage into law in our Nation.

Is it in the best interest of the FairTax Bill to hold back its supporters and keep them so bound in their support of the FairTax? I have to wonder. Personally, I think there is an argument to be made that it would be in the best interest of Bill HR 25 to let your people go! Stop trying to control the natural inclinations of your grassroots supporters and give them back their own voices without micro-managing their support!

Sincerely,
Jacke M.

AlterNet Misleads on the Issue of the HPV Vaccination

Today this AlterNet article was posted in the internet debate group, of which I am a member...following is how I addressed it (and this is just an excerpt of the AlterNet article):

Why the Religious Right Fights Cancer Prevention

By Gene Gerard, Truthdig
Posted on June 13, 2006, Printed on June 14, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/37485/

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent its use.

Alternet uses this blog link: Feministing as their source proof that "conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent" the use of the new HPV vaccine...please point to any statement made by Dr. Finger which offers to limit or prevent it's use:

June 08, 2006

Are we Finger fucked?

Contributed by
Madeline Halperin-Robinson

Merck just announced that the FDA has approved their HPV vaccine, Gardasil. This should be great news, but we all know that nothing is simple these days in matters of public policy and women’s health.

The real battle over the vaccine will be in the coming weeks as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issues their recommendations for how the vaccine should be administered. While the ACIP decisions are non-binding, its recommendations set the standard by which states decide if they will mandate vaccination, insurance companies choose to cover the cost, and doctors decide how to advise their patients. Their decision on June 29 will determine whether or not we will be on our way to eradicating an STI that affects 80% of women by age 50 and is at the root of almost all cases of cervical cancer.

The only member of the 15-member panel to publicly state his opinion about making the vaccine routinely available is Reginald Finger. Dr. Finger nominated himself to the ACIP after the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family was asked to provide a list of scientists to nominate for various federal boards. Dr. Finger (sorry, I can’t get over that name) describes himself as a liaison between the CDC and Focus on the Family. He says, “Focus on the Family wants to have good relationships at CDC - and I can help make those happen.”

He has also said that if “people begin to market the [HPV] vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message.” For the record, Finger would also be wary of approving an HIV vaccine, should one become available.

Sigh. I hope the other 14 members of the ACIP will make their decision based on science and public health. The Family Research Council weighed in at the last ACIP meeting, so you should submit written comments to the ACIP before their June 29 hearing:

Advisory Committee on Immunization PracticesCenters for Disease Control and
Prevention1600 Clifton Road, NEMS E-05Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Posted by Ann at 02:37 PM in Health , Politics , Reproductive Rights

Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Finger's interview with "The Sharpshooter," the link is provided in "Feministing," AlterNet's source, under the hot link for "Reginald Finger:"

"...I helped defend the National Immunization Survey when Congress almost
canceled it. In 1996, I was at the meeting in Atlanta where we decided that
global eradication of measles was a thinkable concept...."

"...Q The Sharpshooter: So how did your appointment to the ACIP come about? And what is the ACIP?

A Dr. Finger: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with CDC to set immunization policy for the nation. We look at the safety, effectiveness, and costs of vaccines, new and old, and the epidemiology of diseases that can be prevented by vaccination, and hammer out recommendations and schedules for the use of each vaccine. These are then accepted and published by CDC. My appointment came about because a little over a year ago, Focus on the Family was asked—along with a number of other organizations—to line up a list of qualifiedscientists to suggest to Secretary Thompson for service on various federal boards. My bosses here gave the assignment to me and kindly suggested that I put my own name on the list. So I did—and this spring HHS called and asked if I would serve onthe ACIP! It was a marvelous opportunity and I jumped at the chance...."

In the interview, Dr. Finger has this
exchange:

"...Q The Sharpshooter: Did you take on smallpox or influenza for a subcommittee assignment within ACIP?

A Dr. Finger: No I didn’t, because these are very complex issues and have lots of people working on them already. My approach was much like a freshman legislator’s might be—to pick an important but less visible issue and try to become expert on it. So I picked—meningococcal disease...."

"Feministing" blog goes on to state: "He has also said that if “people begin to market the [HPV] vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message.”"

And, while Dr. Finger certainly did say that, if you click on the link "also said" and read "The Hill" article the real issue seems to be whether the vaccine should be MANDATORY, which is what the vaccine maker would like, they'd like the government to MANDATE it's use. Finger is doing his job by discussing the uses for the HPV shot...that IS why he is a member of ACIP, after all. Here are some excerpts from that link from "The Hill" CDC panel discussing uses for HPV shot:

"...Democrats worry conservatives’ qualms could cause roadblocks similar to the two-year battle surrounding approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B as an over-the-counter drug.

Conservatives say they welcome the vaccine but worry the ACIP could recommend making it mandatory for school-age children because it would violate parents’ rights.

“That’s something that should be left up to parents to decide,” said Wendy Wright, executive vice president of conservative Concerned Women for America.

A spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a physician who is widely known for his pro-abstinence stances, agreed.

“[Coburn] just thinks it should be made available and that doctors would counsel parents and kids together and that it not be mandatory,” said spokesman John Hart. “Women have the right to access the vaccine, and parents in the case of underage kids should have informed consent about what the vaccine could and could not do.”

Other conservatives say abstinence is the most effective defense against HPV and worry that administering a mandatory HPV vaccine could give a false sense of security for teenagers engaging in premarital sex.

“If people begin to market the vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message,” said Reginald Finger, a member of the ACIP and a former medical adviser for the pro-abstinence Focus on the Family...."

XXX, would you argue that discussion and overview of this issue is unhealthy? Or do you just dislike it when the discussion is coming from what you view as "Conservative" Christians?

There's more...from the "Hill" article:

“...We’re hearing from a lot of different groups across the spectrum of their
support for Gardasil as a vaccine,” Dougherty said, adding that conservative
groups such as the Medical Institute for Sexual Health have expressed support for the vaccine, despite press reports indicating opposition. “We are all working to reduce the risk of cervical cancer....”

I guess it's just not okay to voice concerns and discuss uses of a vaccine and issues such as how it can be marketed or utilized in such a way that children will not get a false sense of security that it will make promiscuous sex "safer," when in truth, yes, it may make it safer in that one regard, but it is certainly still not safe...but bring that issue up and you'll be accused of trying to keep a good vaccine from the people and refusing to allow the vaccine to be used at all and painted with a broad brush suggesting that the "Religious Right is fighting against Cancer Prevention" Lol...give me a break, XXX....and this is why your source "Alternet" is laughable.

Oh, in the "Hill" article Hillary Clinton is quoted:

“I am also concerned that ACIP’s reputation may be sullied if their
recommendations are seen as politically biased,” Clinton wrote."

If she's so concerned that ACIP's reputation may be sullied if their
recommendations are SEEN as politically biased then why is she promoting the idea that it is politically biased to even DISCUSS this issue? Geesh, what a maroon.