Laughing At Honor

"We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

This is a well known C.S. Lewis quote taken from "The Abolition Of Man" published in 1943. In this book Lewis exhibited incredible foresight into the root of the problems that would be plaguing coming generations. As a member of British academia he realized that the seeds that were being sewn there would soon go out into the world and produce fruit, one of which was the death of honor.

I personally always prefered the quote that immediately followed:

"We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

This was a favorite because I could understand it. It wasn't until I began to study Lewis that I realized the high view he held of the whole concept of honor, and worse yet, the extent to which it had died in our current culture. This death had, unbeknownst to me, rendered the first quote nearly meaningless. I had never seen anyone laugh at honor; or perhaps I'd not realized it when they did so.

Providence has given us a wonderful example of "laughing at honor". It involves the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and a statement of hers regarding "legislating from the bench". She and those present well demonstrated the level of honor they held for "the law" of our land that she will be expected to "interpret". I can imagine similar laughter in living rooms across America when Obama said that marriage should be between a man and a woman; laughter that quickly evaporated when repeated by a politically powerless contestant in a beauty pageant.

This is only 26 seconds. I know you've probably already seen it, but go ahead and watch it again with Lewis's quote in mind.

To be sure, these people who think that the "law" and the "constitution" should be putty in their hands, do so with the best of intentions for helping the poor and the common folk. This brings us to one last worthy quote by C.S. Lewis :

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

"God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics"

Additions To The New World Order American Dictionary

At the top right hand corner of this page is a link to the New World Order American Dictionary. The following words are the latest additions.


Arrogance - Any assertion contrary to the assertions of elites that no assertions can be made.

Big Tent-The tent to small for conservatives.

Climate Change-"Global Warming" when the climate doesn't cooperate.

Controversial-A word used to describe all conservative viewpoints and assertions.

Debate-a process which occurs after a Democrat or a representative from his party makes an outrageous statement or proposal. It occurs as liberal commentators using any means necessary, including but not limited to spurious and/or misleading arguments, or polling data to explain on nightly TV why conservatives-normally represented by one token conservative-are not only wrong, but are hateful and mean spirited for daring to disagree.

Equality- the Marxist phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in a word.

Public School-Democrat factory.

Division-the result when people disagree with Democrats.

Diversity - A sophisticated form of oppression by patronization whereby certain groups are deemed victims and then, for the purposes of making those who deemed them as such feel good about themselves while at the same time keeping the victims in their place, insist that the victims remain under their guardianship lest they suffer oppression.

Global Warming-the "bad place" in the religion of Environmentalism reserved for the world when it's inhabitants commit the sin of attempting to achieve a standard of living equal to that of the priests

Greed-disagreement with Liberals on fiscal policies. note: Greed is one of the few sins for which those who do not believe sin exist can show self-righteous indignation. Much of this indignation can be heard though the mega phone of popular media by self-righteous Hollywood types like Michael Moore and prominent news media types such as Chris Matthews who are themselves filthy rich.

Hate Monger-A person who all can hate guilt free.

Judgmental-The idea that no one can judge others' ideas ... except when you are judging an idea that you consider judgmental.

Mainstream- The prevailing thought that the extremist and leftist Hollywood types and media elites think that Americans should have.

Multiculturalism-What remains when a society's individual parts are greater than the whole.

Opinion-A heading under-which all truth claims contrary to those of the Democrat Party are placed.

Right Wing Extremist -a person who sees the actual words in the constitution as the ultimate law of the land.

Separation of Church and State-a pseudo constitutional amendment perpetrated by the ACLU that adds these three words to the first amendment after the first part of the first sentence: "but judges may". Therefore the first amendment must be read and interpreted as thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but judges may".

Tolerance-The notion that everything is not only tolerated, but accepted and encouraged ... except, of course, for intolerance.

Unity-The result when either conservative dissent is quashed, or in the highly unlikely event that everyone agrees with Democrats.

A Memorial To The Blood Of The Children

Some of you may remember, this was written a year or so ago. In honor of this Memorial Day weekend, after some editing, I am republishing it. It again brought tears to my eyes.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This is a famous Thomas Jefferson Quote penned in a time that existed within the confines of natural law; a self evident understanding that there was an absolute unchangeable standard that governed the whole of mankind. Within that context, the understanding of liberty dealt with over-reaching governments, tyrants and despots that were to be defeated, even if it meant sending patriots to die on the battlefield, if liberty were to be preserved. There seemed to be an innate understanding in that day by those who had fresh memories of a conflict that was a result of the inherent and enduring tensions that exist between man's yearning for freedom, and his lust for power. It is necessarily only from that perspective that our constitutional government, with its original intent of law and separated powers, can be understood with clarity.


But there has been a pernicious shift in prevailing thought in the last half century or so. Gone are the underpinnings of an absolute standard upon which the cost of freedom was enumerated; replaced by the shifting sands of a relative standard. Upon this standard of every man a law unto himself, a society's understanding of what morality it should impose upon itself via legislation, and which old impositions should be expunged, is ever changing under the force of anyone who can muster the power to achieve that change. Say hello to the new liberties of the multi-billion dollar porn and abortion industry. Say good-by to any standards of decency that might stand in the way, along with the freedom of the expression of religion that might cause a tinge of guilt.

Another casualty brought about by this shift in thinking is national defense, for if there is no higher order, there is nothing to defend in the traditional sense; that is, except for the licence to do what an individual wills no matter how abominable some might find it. But the price paid in a war of this sort is ultimately cheap in terms of Jefferson's "tree of liberty", because it is fought in the courtrooms of a dying and visionless nation where the worst thing that can happen to the "patriot" is the necessity for an appeal. In these battles the blood of the true patriots is trampled upon on the courtroom floor. Because the truth is, people do not freely give their lives on a battlefield for the right to buy and sale smut; or the right of a the rapist, child molester or pedophile to roam free. In wars over such issues as this, the only nutrition the tree of Jefferson's brand of liberty receives is money. This might explain the tree's currently impoverished state.

This is not to say that a tree of liberty is not refreshed with blood however, for in fact one is. Instead of the blood of patriots and tyrants however, it receives the blood of children and the innocent. This is not well known or realized by many because unlike the blood of the patriot, these children are dying for a liberty with which the prevailing media and thought shepherds agree. Such liberty is initiated by the casting off of old guilt riddled restraints, and so called Victorian repression. Our culture has become liberated from the repressive consequences of shame and guilt. Judgement and discernment have been thrown into the dungeon along with its contemporaries chastity and decency. But, though honor be dead, there is still a tree of liberty that will require to be refreshed even for this kind of liberty. And those who shoulder the burden of providing the blood for that refreshment happen to be the weakest among us. But never fear, it is a price even the most ardent anti-war progressive is willing for them to pay.

Twelve year old Brooke Bennett was a recent donor. She paid the price required so that her murderer and his ilk could enjoy their liberty. She was a casualty for a society that sees the liberty of her murderer, Michael Jacques, a previously convicted sex offender, as more important than her very life; a society that did not have the will to protect her from the evil with which she met; a society that could not even call wrong and evil his behavior leading up to the moment he demanded of Brooke her life. And unlike the soldier, Brooke was denied the peace that might comfort a soldier at his time of death, as he might hope that his death is not in vane. She could not have known as her consciousness faded that through her death, a lost and deluded society might finally be able to muster the will to spare his future victims. Only time will tell yet.

Now we shouldn't expect a tally on the six O:clock news breathlessly giving a running count of those like Brooke who have given their lives for the liberty of pedophiles and child molesters. But the blood of these children is no less the price we pay for our current brand of such foundationless and licentious liberty. No, the self proclaimed free thinking "progressives" that have freed themselves from the constraints of any concept of objective morality, who have unleashed and liberated the demented addicts of the free flow of their much loved smut to prey on our children, will not be having a memorial service for the likes of Brooke Bennett this weekend either. There will be no empty moments of silence in commemoration of the price that those like her have payed so that their coddled deviants may roam and prey freely. There will be no guilt, and no remorse.

But right now, as you read this, there is a young and innocent child somewhere, perhaps playing with a toy on her living room floor, or sleeping peacefully in her bed. Somewhere else, perhaps nearby, is an already convicted predator enjoying his liberty as he prowls the streets in search of his next victim. And one day these two will meet, and while her assailant uses her for his enjoyment, she will die a tortuous and horrific death. And she will do so, not as a soldier trained, equipped and armed on a battle field fighting for a civilized society and as such refreshing the tree of liberty, but instead she will do so in a quiet and dirty secluded place where her screams will not be heard. Like the soldier, that child will be giving her life for the cause of a liberty. And this liberty will be a liberty totally alien to that of Jefferson's. And as we will inevitable demonstrate, totally alien to that of a civilized and peaceful society

On Free-Thinkers

I once read of a competition in which contestants competed in the writing of the longest run-on sentence. Since this has always come natural to me, I've pondered whether or not I might have some natural talent. This post would be no contender in such a contest, but I think it's a fairly decent first shot.

On Free-Thinkers

• To understand free-thinkers one must remember that being a free-thinker is somehow demonstrated by keeping lockstep with every other free-thinker and somehow, even though "narrow minded" Christians are far more vehemently splintered and divergent in their thinking, the fact that this is so is more likely to be used by the free-thinkers to discredit Christians for being what they see as narrow-minded non-thinkers because of a perceived lack of consensus than it is to win any approval from the "free thinkers" for thinking freely, unless, that is, the "close-minded" Christians reject free-thought and join with the free-thinkers altogether by subjecting their thinking to the constraints placed on it by the free-thinker's politically correct thought police by ensuring that their thoughts are in line with all the other free-thinker's thoughts, regardless of what meaningless religious persuasion they may be persuaded by, whereby they will somehow, so it is thought, finally be accepted and loved by the masses and will be free to think freely what they are supposed to think as prescribed and clearly drawn out in the terms set forth by political correctness and name calling like racist and bigot because we all know it is easier to call people names than to refute arguments don't we?

No Mr. President

A well done and poignant rebuttal by John Piper to President Obama's position on Abortion. Please pass it on.


Thanks Inklings

Right Before Our Eyes

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." Historian Paul Johnson


The President made one of his perpetual campaign stops in Phoenix last Wednesday and delivered a commencement address at Arizona State University. He had this to say in the body of his speech:

We've become accustomed to our economic dominance in the world, forgetting that it wasn't reckless deals and get-rich-quick schemes that got us there; but hard work and smart ideas -quality products and wise investments. So we started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings. We saw businesses focus more on rebranding and repackaging than innovating and developing new ideas and products that improve our lives.

Now according to him we are no longer a Christian nation. So, let me see... "we started taking shortcuts, living on credit, not saving". I could make a much larger list of reasons that we're in trouble that stem from the loss of the reference point that is our Christian heritage. But that heritage comes with "baggage" that involves being accountable to a holy and righteous God. This simply will not do; so Obama and all those who elected him, in their arrogance of thinking they can fix the stuff they want to fix, while letting the other be, are going to go it alone. It's amazing how close so many can be to the truth, and miss it.

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." Mt 13:14-15



(click here for entire speech )

A Tribute To A Friend

I began blogging in March 2007 after talking to someone already doing it, and reading a magazine article in Citizen. I had no idea that I'd actually make friends of sorts at it when I started. I can't remember how, but somehow I discovered Jon at Tiger's Got My Back and I've been visiting his blog ever since. We're even going to have coffee.... some day.. if he stays in Denver, I'm confident of that. Its just a matter of planet alignment or something.

You learn all kinds of stuff blogging. I learned a new word from Jon: DINK. (Dual Income No Kids) But Jon is no longer a DINK because of the NK part. A lot can happen in two years. I also learned that he was in seminary and had a couple of years left before finishing. Well, this weekend marks the end of those two years and so I'd like to take a moment to give Jon a great big hearty congratulations. Way to go Jon! Now for a kind admonition: Get back to blogging! :-)

I Think Therefore I Am A Sheep?

"They're just a bunch of sheep". We've all heard this, or at least some variation of it. Or perhaps we've even uttered the words ourselves; always with contempt as we describe a person or group that-depending on what they've given themselves over to-seem easily blown this way or that. Christians are a favorite for these charges; at least I know they once were for me. I saw them as self-righteous and mindless sheep under the control of "the church"; desiring to pull the rest of us into its web of deceit, control and tithing. I never once considered at that time that I might myself be a sheep serving my own master. As a Cristian today I now get to sit under my own judgement from across the span of time. Fortunately this allows me to relate with the accusers of Jesus and his flock today. I now also realize that those judgements were no less the result of a sheep mentality than that of the Christians I so loathed. As it turns out, it's not a matter of whether or not we are sheep, it's a matter of who is our shepherd. As Bob Dylan so aptly put it, "we all gonna have to serve somebody".
Like it or not, we were designed by a creator to do just that, serve our master. Without delving too deeply into the obscure realm of spirit body distinctions, I contend that our brains, in a physical sense, are extremely complex flesh and blood computers, and as such are programmed by someone or something to think in a certain way. Again, it's not a matter of if they are programmed, but who does the programing. There is a reason that history is filled with examples such as the rants of a mad man in the mid 20th century "programing" a whole nation to do the unthinkable. It is also the reason God gave us these instructions on raising our children lest they find themselves under similar control.

Impress… [God’s commandments] on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (1)
This passage gives us a blueprint on properly programing the minds of our children. If the idea of programming our children’s minds somehow sounds repulsive, all I can say is, don't send your children to government schools, and don't let them watch TV.
One of the heard mentality criticisms I often hear from many, as though it was an original thought, is that one’s brain must be checked at the door when entering a church. But, with a little thought one might conclude that if anything should be checked at the door, it is fear. For the result of the surrender required and perpetrated by the Good Shepherd is radical change; change in the way one sees his Father in Heaven, change in the way one sees himself, and change in the way one sees reality. One of those realities is that we are all in fact sheep. For such a surrender is required courage. Moreover, considering what is currently passing as "rational thought", it might be more appropriate to say that one should check his brain at the door on the way out of the church; that is if he is to buy into what passes today as rational thought. Consider some of this “rational thought”:

• Intolerance will somehow not be tolerated.
• There is no truth and somehow that’s true.
• Men running big businesses are only interested in themselves but somehow men running big government programs such as health care will act in our best interest.
• We evolved but somehow homosexuality survived this process and is just as normal as heterosexuality and somehow it is immoral to disagree.
• Laws should somehow not impose one person or group’s morality on another.
• Man is basically good but has somehow been corrupted by society, that society consisting of, of course, man.
• A President who does not care about a baby left in a linen closet to die is going to somehow care about you when you're old and feeble and left in the linen closet to die.

These are laden with self-contradiction, dichotomies, paradoxes, and sophistry, and yet are only a few examples. How are we suppose to interpret this? Are we supposed to simply not think about the inherent irrationality of this so called rational thought and merrily join the hordes being herded along singing, "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die"? This illustrates the lengths and mental calisthenics man is willing to engage in to deny the truth of his subjection to an authority higher than himself. Unfortunately, reality is not subject to man's denials.
In the end man does not ultimately reject the sheep mentality, but rather he rejects the Good Shepherd. He does so in preference to a shepherd who will let him believe he is free, free to think as he pleases, and free to behave as he pleases. But in so doing, as illustrated, thinking freely is his adversary, not his ally, and so his "freedom" is tightly bound to the dictates of a narrow minded and obstruction filled path to reach his desired but ever ellusive destination of sovereignty. His only solace is that the path is a crowded one; filled with the herds of his fellow as he is furtively shepherded to his eternal damnation.

(1) Deuteronomy 6:7-9

Political Science, An Oxymoron?

There seems to be a push underway to paint those who oppose Democrats as anti-science. Their big guns in this effort are Evolution, Stem Cell Research, Environmentalism, and the blowhards at MSNBC. From this foundation they are building their case that if conservatives are given power, they will stymie scientific achievement. Never mind that the great technological achievements of the 20th century occurred under the watch of a mindset that would today be considered right-wing extremism.

I am, as were the founding fathers, sceptical of anything tainted with politics, and science is no exception. Science is science, but it ceases to be so when knowledge is replaced with power as its objective. Under such conditions science begins to look more like political campaigns in which the only data allowed is that which supports a political position, then is used like a bully's club by those with the biggest mega-phone. These kinds of shenanigans result in a science where research is based on conclusions, rather than conclusions on research. This is not science at all, just typical Democrat politics.

Glass Houses vs.Homelessness

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, or so the saying goes. But if you are homeless, I suppose you can have a hay-day. And that's just what's happening to the "controversial" Miss California, Carrie Prejean. It seems she didn't keep her shades pulled down in her glass house, then dared to criticize Homosexual Marriage.

But here's a twist that I think is easily missed while watching this unfold. Pay attention to who's throwing the stones. Do they have a home somewhere that might have some glass in it; some shortcoming, some standard unmet? It may appear not, but where does that put them? As perfect? If one has no standard or virtue to contradict, perfection might very well be possible. The problem is, they do have a virtue: thou shalt not impose thine standards on others. This raises the question to her accusers: were the photographs immoral? Judging from all the hoopla over Prejean's professed Christian beliefs and so called nude photos, I'd say that they also evidently hold as a virtue: Thou shalt not be hypocritical. This deserves the same question, is her hypocrisy immoral? For those who reject morality altogether, these can be very difficult questions to answer, lest their own subterranean morals and standards surface. So a circular argument ensues as they point back to her failure to hold herself to her own standard. But we all know that they're not interested in her standard, at least as it applies to her posing nude. Rather, it's the standards she holds as it applies to homosexual marriage that caused these photos to surface. Otherwise, they couldn't care less how nude she posed, or what personal standard she violated in the process; in fact the further the fall from righteousness, and the more perverse the layout, the better.

This whole thing is reminiscent of the self righteous pharisees bringing before Jesus an adulterous woman, not because they were worried about her adultery, but because they sought to discredit Jesus. It would appear at first that his command "let he that is without sin cast the first stone" is aimed at hypocrites. But it isn't, because we are all technically hypocrites. Christians simply embrace that fact as they, hopefully, work toward becoming less so. It is aimed at self-righteousness, even if that self-righteousness is the result of meeting a standard akin to that of an ally cat. Because the motivation to throw stones does not come from a heart of neutrality, but from a heart of indignation of failure. Miss Prejean's ultimate failure was not hypocrisy or posing nude; it was simply that she did not meet their doctrinal standards on homosexuality. So she is dragged by her accusers before Christendom to be stoned; to which it's reply should be "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", followed by an admonition to Miss Prejean, go, and stop that immoral behavior.

Satanic Bees

I was actually planning on going on a little prayer retreat in our pop-up yesterday. But some bees set up house keeping in an exterior wall of our house, right next to where we keep the camper parked. Not only was I prevented from going on a much needed retreat, but my children also saw their dad for the first time with three lit cigarettes hanging out of his mouth-something I read somewhere about smoke and bees-not to mention him running across the back yard, hands wildly flapping this way and that. Pretty soon I had a wife madder than the bees. (Actually I think the bees liked it, perhaps another brand next time.) It seems I filled her laundry room with cigarette smoke which made it smell like a cheap motel. The good news is I think I got em. Now if I can convince my children their daddy is not going to die of lung cancer, and my wife that the smell will go away... eventually, I'll be off to that much needed retreat.

Swine Flu Surprise, "Not As Bad As Initially Thought"

I was standing in line at airport security and a young couple asked me if I knew if the TSA provided surgical masks. I said probably not. For some reason the young man began explaining to me that the Swine Flu had not occurred when they had left for vacation. In an attempt at humor I suggested that they simply not breath. Then, it occurred to me what the real problem was so I continued: "OR you could turn off your TV. Yea, that's probably your best bet, just turn off your TV."

I heard the headline this morning "Swine flu not as bad as initially thought". My question was "thought by who"? I wonder if the wild eyed breathless anchor babes actually believed what they were reporting? They probably did, but they believed it for you, not for themselves because they are the Rajah (shameless ref to a prev. post) looking down from the balcony giving sight to the blind by their words of wisdom. And what about the CDC? Is it filled with a bunch of Barney Fifes running around in panicked hysteria?

Now there might have been a serious problem, I don't know, but the hype and hysteria I saw in the media was over the top and probably qualified as crying wolf. This begs the question what are we going to do when there's actually a real wolf?