Everytown Shell Game

Posted on Updated on

The elitists are busy telling us how dangerous we are again, and this time they have a big and scary PSA involved, and of course, celebrities are included; because I love being told that protection is overrated from people who get escorted to the grocery store by armed guards…yeah. So, the PSA: An adorable little girl is playing hide and seek with her brother, she runs up the stairs and hides in her parents closet, after knocking a few things down she finds a shoe box containing a loaded handgun. A shoe box. A loaded gun…in a shoe box…with young children loose. The problem with this PSA is that the parents weren’t wearing helmets while snacking on a paint chip sundae and finger painting on their walls with peanut butter.

I digress. The gun slowly starts to turn towards her head…

Will you stop this? Click here. Scenes like this happen all the time, you have another chance to stop a child from being killed.

FYI – I could say those exact same words in a PSA telling you to cut your child’s hot dogs properly.

Don’t you want to stop children from being killed, you gun nut American? DON’T YOU? For the children!!! They preach that they simply want to educate parents on proper gun storage, but then you realize that Moms Demand Pointless Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Big Gulps are behind the ad, and that their form of “proper gun storage” is in the holster of a police officer, not in a law abiding citizens home.

They never address how they will help gun owners keep their guns safe, they just want you to donate money towards their campaign, which goes to politicians and legislative actions, which leads to fighting for increased gun control. Now, what laws will force you to put your loaded gun in a safe and not in a shoe box, and how exactly will they check to make sure you are obeying those laws? See the downhill slope?

My favorite part of the entire grave dancing debacle is when you go to the Moms Demand Action website and find links that lead you to statistics involving “Concealed Carry Killers”. Mmmhmmm. That title isn’t specifically designed to fuel the propaganda against Concealed Carry License holders and demonize them at all…Not even a little, right?

More children and teens are losing their lives to guns now than they are to cancer.” – While the death of a human being is a horrid act regardless of age or reason, for perspective, that statistic involves kids and teens under the age of 19. Take a look at the death toll for kids under 19 in Chicago due to gang related events, regardless of the fact that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and then get back to me. Better yet, get back to Moms Demand Action and let them know you’re not a moron and that they need to try harder.

So what do they want? Aggressive gun laws, registration, bans on bedazzled long rifles that they like to call “Assault Rifles” because “assault” is a scary word, and whatever else they can possibly get passed.

So, you know, it’s time for another history lesson.

Now, before everyone flies off the handle and starts to chastise me by saying that I’m comparing our current situation to the Holocaust, please sit back down, put away the tar and feathers, call the dogs off, have a chai latte and breathe. I’m not eluding to the idea that Obama is Hitler, and I’m not saying that Democrats want to kill us all. I’m recollecting history, and in particular, the history of gun registration.

I’ve witnessed a lot of Republicans/Conservatives that talk about the Nazis and gun registration. They push the idea that gun registration was the catalytic move for the Nazis, that the Nazis themselves ushered in gun registration, etc. I’d like to debate that, not by presenting a less horrifying situation, but by giving historical context to the gun registration battle that should horrify us a lot more than any of Hitler’s gun control quotes.

The gun registration that the Nazis took advantage of was not designed to harm anyone, it was designed to promote safety, responsibility, and sensible gun laws. No sarcasm, it actually was designed to help people. That’s disturbing.

Werner Best, possibly the most forgotten key to Nazi success, was a Reich Commissioner for occupied Denmark, and a former Security Police Leader. He was a brilliant lawyer, an active member of the German National People’s Party, and begat the National Youth League. Best brainstormed with groups of National Socialists to create the Boxheim documents, which he had in his possession when he was arrested.

The Boxheim documents, written in the 1920’s, were seen as an action plan for a communist revolution. The tenants of the Boxheim documents included plans for a coup involving “Storm Divisions”, gun control that involved citizens being shot without trial if in possession of a gun, the abolishment of private poverty, and full control of all Jewish assets, including their food. With plans to starve the Jews he was labeled a lunatic, even by an embarrassed Hitler, who at the time was running for office as an upstanding citizen that preached the beauty of fairness to a large population of devoted followers.

Alas, a nation of forgetful and passive individuals eventual made Best the Police Commissioner in Hessen by 1933, then he was the deputy to Reinhard Heydrich and Himmler within a few years, and he eventually became the chief legal adviser to the Gestapo, and simultaneously held various other high ranking positions of influence due to his intelligence and legal skills.

Back to the point – After the Werner Best plans were found in the early 1930’s, the government reacted by forcing all weapons to be registered. I’ll repeat, because it’s important to understand – In a move to keep Jews safe from monsters like Werner Best, the government ordered that all weapons be registered. Noble, eh? The very laws intended to keep the Jews safe would become their death sentence. To all of our shock, Communists and Nazis did not register their weapons.

Imagine that, apparently psychopaths don’t really have much regard for the law.

By 1933 the Nazi regime, led by Hitler, used the registration records to begin disarming political opponents, this enabled them to seize power. Hitler’s German Weapons Act was born in 1938 after all of his opponents had been removed. They, once again, used the records that were once created to protect the Jews to track down Jewish civilians and sympathizers, confiscating their possessions and weapons. On the Night of the Broken Glass, less than a month after the mass confiscation, Jews were completely defenseless against the unmitigated evil that was unleashed upon them.

Throughout history we learn that criminals and psychopaths don’t scoff in utter hatred of laws that are passed, they use them to their advantage. Best and company didn’t see the registration as a road block, they saw it as a way to gain access to the law abiding citizens that felt bound by their morally sound nature to obey and register their fire arms.

You cannot make men good by law.” – C.S. Lewis

So let’s talk, Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, let’s ask the important questions. I’ll start.

Q: What enabled a country run by monsters to kill roughly 1.5 Million children?

A: Gun registration. By the way, that total happens to be larger than the death toll for choking, guns, childhood cancer, car accidents, etc. combined. Actually, the only thing that even comes close to a comparison is the roughly 1.2 Million children annihilated in the womb every year in America.

Q: What doesn’t stop a criminal?

A: I can’t believe I have to say this, but a sign in a window.

Example: Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Fort Hood, etc…

Q: Why are you using Nazism to make your point?

A: Because I can? I get it, I’m as annoyed by the Obama/Hitler photos as you are, and I find them to be childish; however, there is NOTHING wrong with remembering the mistakes made in history so that we don’t make them again. I wouldn’t bring it up except, oh yeah, we’re making them again. History is full of warnings about increased gun control laws. It’s not a story written by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, it’s a reality, it’s what actually happened, and it is worth remembering.

Q: What else doesn’t stop a criminal?

A: The law. For example, refer to Eric Holder.

Q: What’s the point of this blog post?

A: To show that even if the individuals running the “Everytown” campaign have nothing but pure intentions, their intentions are stupid, harmful, uneducated, and naïve. Period. If they’ve ever read a history book, then they don’t have good intentions. Period. That doesn’t mean that they plan to send us to Auschwitz, it just means that they are willing to put innocent individuals in more danger for the sake of gaining more control.

P.S. Do not keep guns in a shoe box, or anywhere that isn’t locked when kids are in the home.

Sincerely,

Responsible Gun Owner & CCW License Holder

 

It’s time to stop vilifying our military…

Posted on Updated on

I’ve always hated the labels that redirect the responsibility of misdeeds from individual accountability to life circumstance. Sure we all go through struggles, but why does society categorize those who struggle as individuals who somehow deserve a permission slip? 

She had a child out of wedlock at 16 – Yeah, but she has Daddy issues….

He’s a drug addict – Yeah, but he didn’t have many friends…

She sleeps around – Yeah, but she’s a child of divorce…

He’s a rapist – Yeah, but he was sexually abused…

I’ve known many wonderful and strong people who have overcome much, they know the statistics and refuse to be a part of the social expectations. They may struggle emotionally, but they’re determined not to let their suffering victimize someone else. I’ve also known many who let the social expectations dictate their life, it’s like having lifetime subscriptions to “but” and “because” for them. Those who are responsible shouldn’t feel like they have to prove their responsibility to the world because society tells them that their circumstances put them in the negative to begin with. Everyone is responsible for their own life. Which brings me to the meat of this blog post…

PTSD.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to those in Fort Hood. I’m heartbroken for the families that lost a loved one, those who are recovering in the hospital, as well as all of the families that experienced the terror of those life altering moments. Last Wednesday, we all watched the horror unfold like an all too common rerun of a horrific movie, the sudden stab of its reality reoccurring in our minds for days. 

We are human, when such acts of horror invade our world like an unexpected enemy, our first response is always to question why. Closure becomes the holy grail of healing. We want to know what would cause someone to do such a thing, we want to know how we can prevent such acts from occurring. In some small way, leaving the act so fully unjustifiable seems to prove the existence of unmitigated evil in its darkest form. If we can just get a grasp on to the underlying situation we’ll feel a little safer, right? How do you stop someone from wanting to hurt innocent people? Could this particular attack be stopped? How can we make sure that this doesn’t happen again? How can we keep a wife from having to pick out a casket because a madman snapped?

Answer: We can’t. Period. 

The sooner we accept this scary reality, the sooner we can make improvements that increase our ability to protect ourselves and our families.

Upon turning on the news this weekend I heard the term “PTSD” used roughly 10 times in 30 minutes by 3 different stations. I believe that doing so can be both unintentionally harmful, and sometimes meticulously orchestrated, dependent upon the deliverer of said news reports. 

In an effort to answer the “why”, we’ve placed millions of people who suffer from PTSD in a category labeled “Unstable”. Millions of abuse victims, dedicated soldiers, missionaries, car wreck survivors, etc. suffer from PTSD every day, and they aren’t dangerous or unstable. They’re victims of circumstance, but they know they are responsible for their own actions.

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can leave you in fear for your own life, as well as the life of others. It can cause you to feel like you aren’t in control of your surroundings, and oftentimes normal everyday activities serve as a trigger for your memory, causing you to relive the specific events. It leaves some unable to speak about the events, it can cause them to avoid situations that they fear, which can become all consuming. Hypersensitivity, as well as addiction, are also possible. It’s very common, and those who suffer are far from alone.

There are also those who suffer from brain damage and severe mental disorders, and I believe that we can do more to help them and prevent tragedies by doing so. But the point of this post is to make it clear that using PTSD to justify the slaughter of innocent individuals is not only ignorant, it’s irresponsible, and it vilifies those who come home from war. It encourages them not to seek help.

They’re heroes overseas, yet suddenly untrustworthy with a weapon on U.S. soil. We’ll send them to fight for our rights, but then question their own rights when they simply ask for help. In blaming PTSD, we also tell them that they’re not responsible for their actions, and we fail the very people that fight for us. Many feel out of control, and so we reiterate to them that they are out of control by placing their decision making process fully in the hands of an anxiety disorder.

So, to make this perfectly clear:

PTSD did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.

A gun did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.

Millions of people suffering from PTSD daily did not go on a shooting spree, nor will they. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.

Which brings me to my next issue:

Danny Ferguson was engaged to be married. He’d just returned from Afghanistan, and he sacrificed himself while trying to save others. Danny obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.

Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez dedicated 20 years of his life to serving his country, in seven months he planned to retire. Carlos obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.

Timothy Owens was a counselor and had also done time in Iraq. He planned to make the military his career. Timothy obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.

Ivan Lopez did not obey the law, and he took their lives before taking his own.

A common misconception that spread like a vicious wildfire after this recent attack is that Fort Hood, a military base, should be well equipped to protect itself. They feed the idea that we must control guns, that we need to control those with PTSD, that we need to have more restrictions, etc. Yet they fail to mention that our Military bases are GUN FREE ZONES.Fort Hood is the liberal utopia! Guns must be registered, no carrying permitted, only police are armed, etc… Yet what was the first response when these policies failed?

We need more control.”

When are people going to realize that violence will always happen, and that the only response from leftist politicians will be to tighten the belt even more? I believe that even they know it won’t work. It’s the same across the U.S., they know the policies don’t work, we have the proof. Feeding the fear of guns is simply a glowing opportunity for Democrats to have more state control. Period. When it fails, they don’t care, they just push for increased control. The accompanying body count of defenseless victims is simply collateral damage for the common good.

My Dad served in the Army for 30 years. He was trusted in life or death situations, highly trained, level headed, etc… I hope I’m not the only one disturbed by the insanity that while he was willing to take a bullet for our country, our country turned around and put him in danger when he came back home. This fact is infuriating to me, and quite hard to stomach.

Is it just a lack of common sense? It’s simple: Those who plan to break the law and murder someone are not going to mind breaking the law to gain the weapon to do so. That’s right, out of the entire military, including millions of those that suffer with PTSD, .00007% went on a shooting spree this year, so that somehow justifies keeping the rest of our military in danger? Go back and recount those zeros so that we can bask in the unrivaled ignorance of gun control.

I often ask why law makers and leftists fight to unarm our military. The only answer I have is one that scares me: They are either dangerously ignorant, and are therefore incompetent to run a country, OR,  seeing men and women in body bags is not a cost they’re not willing to pay for their propaganda and control.

I see people fighting all the time on behalf of military benefits, and I’m not asking you to stop…But I find it equally important, if not more so, for us to fight for their right to protect themselves. Our soldiers fight for the freedoms outlined in the Constitution, then come home and get gunned down because they’re not allowed to have those same rights, then survivors get labeled as ticking time bombs because they have PTSD.

Come on, America…We can do better.

 

“God’s Not Dead” and other ambiguous statements…

Posted on Updated on

First off, I’d like to note that I love Answers in Genesis, and I’ve used their site for research more times than I can count.

Second off…AiG??? I thought we were tight?! Like baseball and America, chocolate and happiness, pork chops and applesauce, pyromaniacs and matches?! Why’d you go and make a nonsensical post about God’s Not Dead?

In case you didn’t realize it yet, I strongly disagree with AiG’s view of God’s Not Dead. Roger Patterson wrote a review that pointed to what he believed to be the unbiblical nature of God’s Not Dead. In this post I’ll be adding a few of his points, as well as my response.

Being a natural skeptic myself, I tend to take issue with the idea that reason should not be held in high regard. I’m not cold hearted, but let’s just say that C.S. Lewis’s factual and pointed manner makes a deeper emotional connection with me than Beth Moore’s warm and fuzzy encouragement. Both are beneficial, and everyone has their preferences, but that’s the truth. I’m more apt to cry reading Ravi Zacharias than I am watching The Passion of The Christ.

I can be naïve, but not to the point of believing that Christians don’t have their seasons of doubt. I’ve had my share of those seasons, and remembering those moments make me thankful for sound reasoning. Maybe I was guilty of little faith, maybe I’m that annoying kid that constantly said, “nuh-uh”, to the unmitigated madness of those trying to convince me, flawed in my ability to “believe like a child”. But alas, I’m His annoying kid. We’ve often confused the biblical calling for childlike faith with the idea of simplistic faith. But as one apologist put it, we should believe like children, and haven’t we all been shocked by the number of questions children can ask?

So, to start, below is an excerpt from Patterson’s article:

In the first debate, Wheaton boldly declares to his classmates, “We’re going to put God on trial!”

Think about that for a moment. A college freshman is going to place a group of teenagers who are willing to sign away their souls to please a philosophy professor they don’t even know as judge and jury over the omnipotent Creator God of the universe.

While Wheaton sought counsel from a pastor on his decision, he might have done well to consult his Lord who plainly said when He was tempted in the wilderness, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Luke 4:12, ESV). Only a fool thinks he can sit as judge over the Judge of the universe.”

Alrighty. First, let’s break down the verse used. In Luke 4:12 Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, which, like in the wilderness, was a warning not to taunt God for proof of a divine revelation when he has sufficiently given them proof already. In Deuteronomy it gives a comparison, “as you did in Massah”. So, let’s follow the breadcrumbs: In Exodus we learn that Moses named Massah as such because it signifies “temptation”. The children of Israel were taunting God, giving ultimatums. He had already proven Himself to them time and time again, but they still taunted Him by demanding food, water, cattle, etc. in return for their devotion. If their needs were not met, they attempted to threaten the Almighty God by saying they would no longer believe. Coming to the conclusion that the Lord is not among them out of anger, not sound logic or lack of belief.

Example of such taunting: “Mommy, if you don’t give me a cookie you won’t be my Mommy anymore.”

Affirming their acknowledgment of existence in the very threat itself.

So what does that have to do with the above issue that Answers in Genesis has with the movie? Well, they’d have a legitimate point if Wheaton had said, “We’re going to put God on trial. Everyone sit here, if God’s real, he’ll drop Arby’s roast beef sandwiches and curly fries on all of our desks.”… But he didn’t make such an audacious request, he simply wanted to expose the factual evidence already given to an audience that had never sought out the evidence. Putting the evidence for God on trial, not God Himself. If they have issue with his verbiage, that’s fine, but the rest of their argument falls flat because the actions that went along with “putting God on trial” were no different than their own.

Let’s be honest, the real issue for Patterson is that the Movie didn’t proclaim from the rooftops that the earth is young. With all due respect, all other points were just excessive – and faulty – nitpicking.

Moving along.

Robertson continues with the following:

In approaching the issue in this manner, Wheaton ignores the truth of Romans 1:18–32. The people sitting in those seats and even the professor know God exists. The existence of God is not the question—whether they are willing to bow to Him as King is.

Wheaton could have agreed to the debate and used the Word of God as his foundation, as Jesus did in the wilderness temptation, but he chose to appeal to reason—the reason of fallen men and women whose minds are blinded by the god of this age.”

Reason is the modus operandi of the mind. Biblically, the mind is not merely a physical tool that keeps us alive, it is part of the soul. The bridge between a presupposition and a stable hypothesis is reason; however, there is nothing beyond a hypothesis to be found anywhere but in the Word of God. Wheaton’s foundation was the word of God, the issue is that, once again, he didn’t specify young earth creationism in his dialogue. It’s foolish to dismiss an entire movie and not help promote it simply because it encourages kids to think, but doesn’t clarify that they need to think exactly as you do. I would even go so far as to say this makes them as guilty as the atheists that claim audacious absolutes.

Wheaton’s goal was to open them up to the idea that a God exists, to make them think, not to appease the young earth creationist ideals, or the theist evolutionist ideals.

At the end of the movie all of the students proclaim that “God’s not dead”, but only one student gives his life to Christ. I would venture to guess that the majority of those in classrooms across America have at some point in time heard the gospel, yet walk away from faith because they were offered absolutely no reasoning. He used the bible to prove his point, he just didn’t articulate AiG’s exact position. Once again, he didn’t advocate for young earth creationism or theistic evolution, he simply asked people to think with an open mind.

I also take issue with their assumption that Atheists are simply lying about their belief in God. I would argue that while God writes His laws on the hearts of all men, it is possible that they have developed a suppression of knowledge.

Example: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting.” – Romans 1:28

God didn’t suppress their knowledge. They, and the world, in an act of free will built presuppositions that suppressed or belittled the existence of God. So, I could argue that what God’s Not Dead encouraged was not only belief in the existence of God, but they mainly wanted to bulldoze down the presuppositions built by man. It’s the idea of intuitive knowledge vs. beliefs built on human perception. Most atheists are not simply liars that actually believe in God but just aren’t telling anyone because they enjoy being deceitful. We won’t encourage them to think openly by vilifying their intentions. They’ve suppressed their intuitive knowledge like Pharaoh suppressed his intuitive knowledge of what was right in Exodus.

We can see that atheists exercise their biblical intuitive knowledge daily by attributing worth to human life, that doesn’t mean they have conscious awareness of their intuitive knowledge. SO, from that standpoint, it is quite logical to assume that no, their conscious awareness is not in the know that God exists. Yet, their anger towards a God that their conscious awareness claims doesn’t exist is indicative of the fact that intuitive knowledge is present, but deeply buried under the presuppositions of societal views on God. So yes, AiG, the existence of God is the question.

Additionally, if everyone knows about God, why does their site exist? To simply educate believers, or to encourage reasoning from both believers and unbelievers. I’ve always thought it was both.

In other instances, the Christians endorsing the movie are happy to accept the big bang and biological evolution as proof of God’s work in the universe.”

Huh? No, I’m happy to continue researching scientific findings knowing all the while that whether the earth was created yesterday, or 7 billion years ago, the only way it happened is through God and God alone. I’m also completely thrilled if a movie has the power to make students mull over the creator of the universe, regardless of when He demanded there be light.

Ultimately – and in my opinion – and certainly AiG and I would disagree as to whether or not it agrees philosophically with the bible, but the goal of the movie was neither to promote evolution nor creation, but, by Wheaton’s own admission in his opening statement, prove that modern philosophy cannot disprove the existence of God. Plain and simple. Ergo, the title of the movie. And again, in my opinion, mission accomplished.

- MB

Candy & Cosmic Inflation

Posted on Updated on

Last weekend I went to the movies with my nephews to see Mr. Peabody & Sherman. It was ridiculously adorable, and an all-around feel good movie. My nephew and I were standing in line to get snacks and I told him to pick out a piece of candy. He immediately pointed to the Starburst, and I, knowing that the Starburst in this particular theater have been hard in the past, thought that was a bad idea and didn’t like the choking hazard. The conversation went as follows:

Me: “Oh buddy, why don’t we pick out something else?”

C (6): “But I want the Starburst…”

Me: “Well, they’re not like normal Starburst, they don’t taste very good here. But they have Skittles, and they have the special yummy Wild Berry Skittles here, but pick out what you want…”

C: “Skittles!! But then later we can go to the store and get yummy Starburst, right?”

Me: “Yep!”

Yep, I lied. The Starburst probably tasted just like regular old Starburst, but I didn’t want to make him feel like he wasn’t a big boy, and I didn’t want to dampen his Birthday spirits and tell him “no” without giving a good reason. So, I manipulated his craving by making the object of his interest seem undesirable, and I overemphasized the positives of the snack I wanted him to have; however, he was not aware of my intentions, he thought it was all his idea to buy the Skittles.

Judge me if you must.

In the world of Science, Atheism is a Skittle, while Creationism a Starburst. (Yeah, you can quote me on that.)

Kelly Oxford and Seth Rogen took their genius to Twitter last weekend. If you don’t know who they are, basically they are two elitist actors that have siphoned your wallet for years and are now astounded by your idiocy. They are hilariously entertained by your tiny little brains that reject science. My first inclination when I hear such infinite knowledge of the universe, while claiming there is no such thing as infinite knowledge, is to drop everything and run to the defense of faith. But in a surprising plot twist, I will instead drop everything and run to the defense of science.

Below are points that articulate why I believe Atheists are actually the group that is actively rejecting science, and the below points have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. -

Christianity and science are not enemies.

This week a major scientific discovery took place and the atheist community is bouncing off the walls in excitement over the coming melt down of the Christian belief system. One commenter actually proclaiming, “I can’t wait for the implosion in the Christian church upon full absorption of the evidence”, another boldly proclaims that this discovery is on par with the top 3 discoveries ever made. Yet, thus far, my faith is not in need of the bomb squad just yet. Their Neanderthal-esque fist pounding is indicative of what they actually find more important, disproving a god they don’t believe in is far more important to them than the existence of new scientific findings.

So what’s the discovery?! Scientists believe they have found proof of Cosmic Inflation, which would substantiate the Big Bang theory. Now, I’m not a scientist, nor are many of the individuals taking to Facebook and Twitter to falsely label people of faith as ignorant. I don’t have all the answers, nor do I have the ability to hold my own in a debate with Richard Dawkins. But I can, with confidence, declare one thing: The Big Bang, even proven, still wouldn’t account for the beginning of matter. Many atheists don’t realize that this is what it comes down to. That’s also why many scientists who don’t believe in God still have respect for those that do.

Thomas Aquinas eluded to the idea that reason begets faith; however, unfortunately that is opposite of today’s church in many aspects. Maybe if this were reversed we wouldn’t see as many “Christians” leaving the faith once they leave the house. His point was timeless in that it wasn’t dependent upon scientific discoveries to substantiate it. The nature of causality: Something cannot come from nothing, regression to infinity via efficient causes is not possible, with no cause there is no effect, a first cause must beget all others, so a supernatural cause exists. Now this is debated by those who ask the very logical question, “What caused God?”…. Now I would say that, while logical, asking such a question is similar to asking, “how many feet does a cookie smell like”. It’s a category fallacy to assume that the smell of a cookie can be measured by feet, it’s a category fallacy to assume that an uncausable being can be held to the standards of a causable creation. His nature alone is beyond our comprehension, and for that matter, causality.

Basically, we have no answer. A) You could call me a fool for saying that an uncausable being caused the universe in all its intricacies, because something cannot come from nothing. Or B) You can exhaust all possible causes for the beginning of the universe and still never find the initial cause. Both of which are a form of belief. I’m not refusing to acknowledge the scientific findings, I’m simply choosing, just as you, a presupposition by which we’ve adapted before we look at all the facts, none of which will ever be able to explain every detail.

So I walk into the kitchen and find a pan of brownies and ask, “how were these made?”, after a considerable amount of research I find the bowl with traces of left over brownie dough, I don’t then proclaim to the world that I have proof that no one went to the store and bought the brownie mix. I’ve already heard rebuttals from young earth creationists, as well as Christians that believe in evolution, and I personally like to absorb it all in before coming to my own conclusions. But I’ll say with confidence that recent findings still leave us wondering how the brownie mix got into the kitchen. Heck, where did the space for the kitchen come from?

We are not infinite beings.

As my favorite apologist Ravi Zacharias notes, to claim infinite knowledge of the creation of the world, while claiming that there is no one being with infinite knowledge, is to take the antithetical position of rationalism. There you sit, with your presuppositions, as I have mine, trying to build your argument in the sand and then convince me that it’s more equipped to withstand a stiff wind than mine because you painted bricks on the cardboard walls. Some point out that no peer reviewed published papers have been published on creationism, yet many creationists themselves have had peer reviewed published papers. If lack of peer review published papers make the theory irrefutably futile, then those that believe it are irrefutably ignorant; by proxy, anything they have published is lacking in credibility. But that just isn’t the case, because many on both sides of the debate are brilliant scientists who have simply chosen one of two unproved theories, yet are still highly regarded in the scientific community.

Assuming that one scientist claiming absolute knowledge of the unproven (evolution) is somehow a work of genius, while another scientist is some sort of a “dreamer” for refusing to claim infinite knowledge is irresponsible.

You can post all the links you want that talk about the “cold hard facts that disprove creationism”, and guess what, they are presupposed viewpoints that still aren’t substantiated. Incredibly brilliant atheists that I hold in high regard still say that there are many unanswered questions, even after this recent discovery. There are many agnostic scientists that claim neither faith nor the great abyss of emptiness, and that’s because while they may not believe in my God, they continue to seek the truth and not some canned version that gives them the excuse they need to dismiss the idea that there is a god. I’m not saying that the evolutionists don’t have their facts, they have theirs just as the creationists have theirs, but much of it comes down to interpretation.

SIDE NOTE: You can believe in Micro Evolution even if  you don’t agree with Macro Evolution.

They’re labeling individuals with much higher IQ’s than themselves as ignoramuses. This never ends well.

I wonder if the new atheists could tell Galileo that he’s a fact-less moron, or tell James Joule that his contributions to the first law of thermodynamics is a joke due to his belief in God, or look astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in the eyes and mock his work in the theory of relativity due to his religious inclinations. Oh to be Einstein, questioning the possibility of a higher being and not even realizing how brainless your silly scientific approach makes you. Speaking of Einstein, even while questioning the possibility of a higher being, he was also the first (correct me if I’m wrong) to even mention the idea of Cosmic Inflation. Or how about Oxford Professor Dr. John Lennox, a brilliant Creationist. Or Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, or Wayne Frair, who only has a Ph. D. in biochemical taxonomy….I’m sure that Kelly Oxford would have the upper hand in a debate with him, right?

But see, instead of accepting the idea that both sides of the debate are finding legitimate proof for their claims, they would rather point and call names. Because that’s super scientific. They need to manipulate you into believing that Skittles are the superior treat and that the Starburst taste poorly, and when you believe it without researching the facts, what do you end up looking like? A gullible six year old.

So, as Christians we shouldn’t be dropping our bibles in disgust, or attacking new findings, we should be absorbing them. The more unique and detailed we find this world to be, the more it points to the original cause. And atheists should be more accepting of the idea that there are indeed Christians out there that rejoice in scientific findings, as well as know the long list of errors that have accompanied those findings years later. All in all, neither of us have concrete answers, but when I look at the brilliance in the intricate design of something as simple as an eyeball, I’m pointed to the existence of God. 

Dear Women, Let’s give up!

Posted on Updated on

Dear Fellow Women,

This week a campaign was launched to ban the word “bossy”. This ridiculous campaign has the backing of various celebrities, politicians, as well as the First Lady; basically, all of the people that I don’t consult when I need an opinion about my vocabulary. Apparently, beneath the layers of our supposed lack of gender equality, a painful barrier was put in place to prohibit women from being strong, successful and confident. This campaign has been initiated to successfully turn a patch of flat land into a mountain. Not to be redundant, but put plainly, they are attempting to turn absolutely nothing into a sexist catastrophe.

The almost unmentionable act being perpetrated on women throughout the world has finally come to the attention of the elitists after years of blindness. Just kidding, it’s really just here in the United States, because in other countries women are more worried about being executed if their burka malfunctions, or being sentenced to a gang rape for doing what Hollywood does on a daily basis.

I digress…back to us:

Bitter? Yeah. They’re bitter. Why wouldn’t they be? Here they thought progress for their fake notion was being made, only to now find that the years of grueling attempts at beating their make believe equality war in to our tiny little female brains were but a pretend waste. In a deserted land of unfair circumstances, success was but a mirage. The shifting sands of society are mere breadcrumbs for the meatloaf women should be making instead of doing things like thinking, voting, or anything else that takes more brain cells than worrying about a word…. But alas, the open door to the future is but a partition in a limo, right, Beyonce?

There we were, forming our own opinions, when suddenly a word protruded through the thick walls of our confidence, throwing us back into the kitchen where we belong.

Bossy.

I was then forced to realize that at various times in my life I, in my deep depravity, had been bossy; however, this revelation brought with it another, the revelation that I didn’t care that I was told I was being bossy. Now, in an attempt to ban the wretched word, the true colors of “strong” women are coming out. The unmitigated weakness of our sex is presenting itself to the world, standing on the pitiful soapbox of feminist propaganda while proclaiming that our heads are full of such flawed grey matter that a mere five letter word has the power to hold us back.

So, I have a solution to this, clearly, disastrous and unprecedented issue. See below:

As women, weakened by the blow of a common euphemism for someone that takes charge, I’ve decided that we should give up. We should pack it in for a multitude of reasons, only a handful of which are listed below –

 1.  We’re stupid.

Clearly we’ve had enough of this personal opinion, hyperbolic individuality crap. Thinking for ourselves is difficult, it’s tiresome; quite honestly, it’s much easier to be told what to do and think. According to feminists, we need pretend cultural catastrophes to push our finely toned bum up the ladder anyway, why not just sit back and believe the lies in the mind numbing display of stupidity they expect us to? So, let’s get on that dance floor, listen to what Jennifer Lopez says, and lift our drinks in the air. Our small minds are better suited for the trivial things in life, like how did Lady Gaga come up with such a brilliant euphemism like “disco stick”, am I right? Or, are our bodies really too bootylicious for you? And, what dress did Jennifer Garner wear to the Oscars? It’s gorgeous, she’s gorgeous, and anyone that looks that good clearly has all the answers as to why I can’t get that promotion.

DISCLAIMER: I have absolutely no idea if Jennifer Garner even went to the Oscars, because I don’t watch them. And I don’t care. Not even a little. My care tank is on “E”. My celebrity care account is in the negative.

2. We’re really stupid.

We desperately need women like Lena Dunham to show us that sexual abuse is pretty funny, being a man’s plaything is our sole purpose in life, and that we need sexualized campaign commercials just to get us out of bed to vote. Oh, and she also teaches us that to further your career all you need to do is remove your clothing. We need words like “bossy” to be banned in order for us to make any improvement for our own sex, clearly our little minds can’t possibly tackle obstacles with the false implications of a word lingering overhead. Dictionaries around every corner, just waiting to fall on the floor and oppress us with dangerous adjectives, verbs that hope to seek out your managerial skills and destroy them. And clearly, since we didn’t realize the brutality of this wretched word before, how could we possibly read a graph correctly, or open an email? Are we even qualified to take the trash out? Let’s face it, with words like “bossy” being tossed around, I think we’re better off playing doctor than being a doctor, right?? Hollywood???

3. We are, without doubt, incredibly stupid. (WARNING: GRAPHIC LYRICS)

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jayz/bigpimpinextended.html <—– Because his wife is somehow our feminist ambassador.

4. We’re dangerously stupid.  (WARNING: GRAPHIC LYRICS)

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beyonceknowles/yoncpartition.html <—– Because she is somehow our feminist ambassador.

5. Not to beat a dead horse, but we’re weapons grade stupid.

For many reasons, like the sheer fact that the elitists in Hollywood think that they can control the minds of women, the fact that we beg for more dependence on men while screaming about our equality, the fact that we worship those that encourage us to treat our bodies like meal tickets, or the fact that we are teaching little girls that a word like “bossy” has power over them. Acting like a word, used in the right context, is somehow bad for women is beyond ludicrous and insults our intelligence. Believing such hypocritical rubbish just proves my point.

I personally feel that if the original feminists could see us today, they would question our right to vote. So, shall we throw the towel in, Ladies? No? You want to be viewed as an individual with a functioning brain? Then do us ALL a favor and tell the #BanBossy crowd to throw their simple minded pathetic rhetoric off a cliff. Tell them to stop telling you what to think, you know, tell them to stop being bossy!

Sorry if I sounded “bossy” in this post.

Just kidding, I’m not sorry.

In closing, I am lacking in any photos that would go well with this post, so I’ve decided to post a picture of my dog dressed up like Sherlock Holmes. Because it’s adorable.

- Mb

Image

A Rose by Any Other Name…

Posted on Updated on

When I was 9 years old I attended a private school in Pennsylvania, stiff upper-lip teachers, uniforms and all. We read a great deal of books while at school; in addition, we had to list off a number of books that we would read during the year at home. The part I hated most would grow to be the part I appreciate most now: comprehension tests. After each book we had a set of rigorous questions to answer, each pertaining to intricate details found within the book. With the glaring eyes of a teacher staring through you as you stumbled for the answers to the multitude of questions, you quickly learned to actually pay attention when you took to reading your books.

Could my teacher have simply taken us through the areas that answered the questions? Of course. We would have passed the tests with flying colors, received a good grade, and the clouds would have opened up and beamed a heavenly glow around a highly approved teacher. But what good would it do for our actual education, not just the grades on a paper? Nothing. You can teach a child to pass a test, but the result will not be the comprehension of the materials.

Welcome to Common Core.

I could go on a 6 page tangent over the idea that classic literature and personal writing is somehow deemed irrelevant to those that add their approval to such poor standards, but alas, I won’t only focus on this one issue since it is simply one large missing portion of a widely flawed initiative. Ok…For the sake of being honest, I’ll probably focus a lot of this post on said portion. Our society would rather have kids droning on about vampires and Anastasia Steele than topics and stories that challenge the reader to create within their mind a space welcoming of creativity, and that’s the sad fact.

Common Core attempts to prepare kids for the workforce (emphasis on “attempts”), not for college. By high school, common core will place kids years behind the education level in other countries. Can schools do anything about that? They can modify the standards by an additional 15%, but the standards themselves are under a copyright by NGA Center, and the Council of Chief State School Officers; regretfully, they are the only group that has the legal right to change the standards. So if your school says “we modified and only partially adapted” in an attempt to bring levity to the change, realize that they are grossly misleading you, or they have no idea what they’re talking about - both of which should concern you.

Why did states welcome Common Core with open arms, many knowing the issues it would cause? The almighty dollar. Money trumps the future of your child’s education in today’s world, it’s as simple as that. Money and waivers are given to those that welcomed Common Core standards and testing. Period.

Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, had the following to say about Common Core standards when she refused to sign off on the standards:

“As empty skill sets, Common Core’s ELA “college readiness” standards weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework, decrease the capacity for analytical thinking, and completely muddle the development of writing skills.”

She goes on to note that English teachers are being asked to teach on materials that are beyond their skill set. At minimum, 50% of the curriculum must be filled with informational nonfiction material (questionable material at best); reducing literary material to dismal levels, occasionally minor quotes and sections are substituted instead of allowing students to absorb the full material.

Maybe now is when you might question the importance of literature. “What’s the big deal?”… As infuriating as it is to even hear it be questioned, I believe that we should seize the opportunity to explain.

If not for the works of Mary Wollstonecraft, the original feminist movement may not have been born. No, not today’s feminist movement, the feminist movement that would be revolted by today’s feminists and their ultimate goal of objectifying women across the globe.

“…and women, intoxicated by the adoration that men (under the influence of their senses) pay them, don’t try to achieve a permanently important place in men’s feelings, or to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement in their society…

…as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavor to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing.”  - Mary Wollstonecraft

Literature is an important key to understanding moral customs and cultural differences. We learn about the beauty of a free society and the struggles highlighted for our minds to analyze. We are forced to contemplate good and evil, acknowledge the differences between our fellow man, and imagine for just a time that we are struggling with the lost. Our emotions are challenged, and our compassion developed. It teaches us the benefits of metaphors, comprehension, and depth of character; every person, every stage, every smell, every scene is custom to the reader. Building it inside of our minds while the story unfolds. They are not just a people spoken about in our history books, the characters become a being that we know and care for; we develop a logical response to both good and bad actions through our connection to the character. You may choose to toss it out with the pile of what you deem to be useless art, but I fear that the societal decline that has accompanied the lack of reading and writing is of no coincidence.

Let’s also not forget that our failing vocabulary could use a substantial lift.

See “bling”, “twerk”, “cuz”, “totes”, “peeps”, “adorbs”, “realz”, “dat”, “haz”, “luv”, “YOLO”, “swag”, “outa”, “chillax”, “whatevs”,  etc…. I rest my case. Do you realize that many of those words won’t even be corrected by autocorrect? Dat should totes make you weep 4 humanity, Peeps, 4 realz.

Our education system is encouraging/forcing kids to waste much of their time on not using their mind to contemplate morals, use critical thinking or build worlds inside their imagination. If time is the true currency, what our schools are doing is as frivolous as flushing your money down the toilet. In reality, it is more so. Once again Stotsky reiterates:

“Teachers and parents are regularly being told that more technical and persuasive writing will boost students’ critical thinking.  But little analytical thinking is apt to appear in letters to the principal about cafeteria food that kids are often encouraged to write in order to practice writing a “persuasive” letter. Reading researchers know there is absolutely no research to support the idea that increased study of “literary non-fiction” or “informational” texts in the English class, or increases in persuasive writing, will increase students’ level of analytical thinking.  There is every reason to believe they will, instead, lower the level.”

To read her full statement, click here.

I would be remiss if I also didn’t note that we had already experienced the failures of universal testing with NCLB (No Child Left Behind). Schools in low income neighborhoods became what Common Core wishes for all schools to become: test preparation programs. NCLB disciplined high performing schools and children on its war path to lift poor performers up. This never works. It’s never worked. Why do we keep trying such doomed experimental programs with education AND economics???

So then we take billionaires and politically motivated organizations and give them the reins to dismantle a democratic institution that has done more to bring equality than any other democratic institution in the USA? We provided opportunity to those who made the choice to seek it out, now we are punishing those who strive for success. Since NCLB & Common Core, there has been an increase in charter schools; meanwhile, thousands of public schools have been forced to close. Public schools that while in poor neighborhoods were the bridge that offered hope and freedom to children that, despite their circumstances, created within themselves the ability to survive & accomplish. Years later we now have increased child poverty, and the continual widening of achievement gaps due to standards that were backed by both sides of the aisle.

Well done, Ol’ Chaps!

Back to Common Core – Not only will children suffer in their reading and writing, but in a world where comprehension is not a priority, math and various other studies will take a detrimental blow. We are already seeing arithmetic problems in grade school students turned into 100+ steps of wasted time. It is making children feel like failures, when in reality, their minds should be built to solve the problem in the most logical way. Horrifyingly, these practices have never even been tested! They’ve turned the United States education system into a giant experiment. The weakness of the Common Core math standards were even noted by the creators of the standards themselves.

But then it gets even better!

We have a nation of kids who have constant entertainment. Video games, television, movies, etc. fill their days. Constantly being fed the narrative. Constantly being mind numbingly entertained. Then we send them to school and expect them to pay attention to the mundane, the redundant, and the unimaginative, then drug them because they are “hyper”.

Historically we didn’t have the issues that we have, and many other countries don’t either, so what gives? Clearly changes in the last 50 years have led us to this point, what were they? Do they have to do with chemicals? Food Dyes? Education? Shouldn’t those be the first questions we respond with before we start pumping children with more pharmaceuticals than an 80’s rock band?

If you or your child exhibit 6 of the 18 ADHD behaviors, you/they can be labeled as an individual who suffers from a “biologic abnormality of the brain” and handed a prescription. Read the behavior list sometime, you’ll likely come to the same conclusion as me: every human being at some point has suffered from ADHD. Imagine the entire population of Nicaragua, that’s roughly how many children in the US alone are on Psychotropic drugs. Kids are diagnosed at an alarming rate. Once signs of a hyper personality are found, parents, teachers, and doctors flock to the easy out like starving castaways who have just come upon a Pizza Hut.

Maybe I’m just primitive in nature, turning from my cave art to watch the spectacle and shake my club in mumbled revolt, but those “symptoms” seem to me to be an epidemic of both the mind and the heart. I’m not a doctor, but I am an observer of society and the downhill slope it’s taking that leads directly to a lava pit.

In a world filled with sensory overload, we’ve lost a huge part of who we are. With every advancement made in video games, the entertainment industry, and now faulty school standards, we slam another nail into the casket of creativity and imagination.  Now I’m not saying that all movies, games, and shows are bad, I’m just saying that as time goes on, our hearts become more invested in things that require little thought process. God created our minds to be used, and when kids are scratching on the walls of conformity we’ve now decided they need a pill instead of a change. They don’t require self-discipline because it’s not expected any longer, and then we have to deal with ADULTS that have no self-discipline.

And Isn’t that a peach….

Welcome to the new America. Start standing up against the change, or conform to the new thought standards, perpetuating a system that creates robots that simply obey the government agenda. Educators & politicians can call what they are doing education, but indoctrination by any other name will destroy as swiftly.

“What appalls me most about the standards is the cavalier contempt for great works of human art and thought, in literary form. It is a sheer ignorance of the life of the imagination. We are not programming machines. We are teaching children. We are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be forming the minds and hearts of men and women to be human beings, honoring what is good and right and cherishing what is beautiful.” Dr. Anthony Esolen – Providence College

Defining a Hero

Posted on

A while back I wrote Defining a Monster (click here for link to post), this is my follow up:

My 5 year-old nephew runs into the room slamming his fists to the ground, pretending as though he were the star of an action packed blockbuster. Our masked vigilante valiantly fighting the evils of the world that’s located inside his vivid imagination with his staggering height and built muscles, which also only exist in his vivid imagination. He’s still at the age where he thinks that finishing off his potatoes will bring instant results to his muscle mass. I remember being little and constantly thinking of stories in my head, I look at him and just think of the wheels that must be turning. The momentary bravery it takes to fight the elusive “bad guy” that he’s created, and then the innocence of the hero that suddenly needs milk with his brownie and pizza.

As we entered the new year, I noticed a lack of excitement that normally accompanies the determination that somehow gets harpooned into our souls when the clock strikes midnight. It was as if we spent all of 2013 sailing closer and closer to Cape Horn, and as we stood on the ship deck counting down the minutes to midnight we contemplated the dangers of the waters soon to be traveled. Instead of the ball dropping in time square, we saw the high winds, the sharp rocks, the daunting icebergs; all of the dangers ahead would surely find us to be inexperienced sailors in well over our head, and they would undoubtedly take advantage at every possible turn. I don’t think it’s a secret, 2014 is not a number known for its coming joys for America.

Since the new year we have faced insurance difficulties, as well as an updated projection from the CBO for what we should expect for future full-time job loss due to the ACA. The expected numbers more than doubled, and the part time epidemic is set to take hold due to insurance regulations.  Additionally, yet another poor job report was released last week that seems to prove the pessimistic economists to be prophets. I’ll definitely be talking about some of those issues in the coming posts, but today I wanted to do something different.

I am not always the most delicate in my deliverance of opinion. I find the truth to be best when it’s laid out bare; admittedly, concerns over the brittleness of eggshells rarely infiltrate my mind. Reason is of the utmost importance to me, to a fault I might add. There’s no denying that God has His hands full with me and my unbridled skepticism, I surely earn my place on the cross daily. Have you ever played 20 questions with a 5 year old? Now imagine your patience level by question 50. Now tack on a couple million questions and you might have a feeling for what God endures from this daughter of His.

Issues & debates are puzzles, puzzles need to be solved. Period. I have to shut that part of me down sometimes, followed by walking away due to the fact that shutting that part down is normally not a process I’m willing to perform twice. My tolerance level for discursiveness is not what one would note as “desirable“, for me it’s like taking the organized puzzle pieces and throwing them on the ground in an attempt to complete the puzzle. It doesn’t make sense. More so, I find that we are far too delicate in matters that call for unabashed truth, and often brash in matters that call for delicacy. It’s the human condition colliding with Christianity that I wrote about in my last post. So while some may charge me with being too critical of the Christian, “my own kind”, I’ve always been more apt to lean on the side of logic and ignore the social norms of Sunday night potluck positivity.

Growing up I loved things that glowed in the dark; stars on a ceiling, secret notes on black paper, etc. (Clearly I was meant to be a spy.) But I always remember those things being so dull when all of the lights were on. You couldn’t see them or admire their contributions to the dark in a fully lit room. We used to run and find a room that had no windows, the darker the better; every step into the darkness made the secret words on black paper easier to read, every bit of sun that disappeared made the stars brighter. Some may accuse me of dwelling on the negative, or obsessing with the world. That’s their opinion. I don’t dwell on the negative, I just care deeply about those swallowed up by the negative. I’m not obsessed with the world, I simply hurt for those in its grasps. And sometimes, I turn off all the lights and look in the darkness for that glimmer of light that refused to buckle in to the black. My admiration for those glimmers of light and how Christ used them outweigh any assumptions of my obsessions with the repugnance of the world in my mind. To be honest, I am filled with hope, overflowing with gratitude for my Savior, and breathlessly amazed at how He moves in this world. As the song goes, I pray that my heart continues to break for what breaks His.

SO, in honor of the approaching sharp rocks, I couldn’t think of anything more fitting than to write about a few men that saw danger and met it with heroic determination. In a world where Iron Man is idolized and Thor is worshiped, sometimes the most heroic of men go unnoticed. Right now I’m content with my nephew’s infatuation with Captain America and his powerful shield that brings down the evil that stalks the world, but someday I hope his adoration and interests are held by men who didn’t need a shield; men with hearts that shook the world more than The Hulk’s mighty fists ever could. The logic that appealed to the natural instinct of self-preservation in these men was trumped by the logic of human worth and hope, which is itself an act that defies the idea of a Godless world and speaks to the greatest form of proof for Him that we can experience daily. That is why sometimes it’s a good thing to acknowledge the dark.

We do not know what a Jew is, we know only men.” – Words spoken by Andre Trocme when asked by the Nazis to produce a list of Jews. Andre lived in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, France during the Holocaust. He, along with his wife, were responsible for helping what is believed to be over 4000 Jewish refugees find homes in his city. He, as the “spiritual leader”, encouraged the townspeople to do the work of God. He continued to tell his followers that when the Nazis came and took him away – for his refusal to provide a list – that they were to continue in the effort to save as many as they could. He woke up every morning to the realization that his life could end, or that he would be imprisoned, and everyday his ethical convictions drove him to continue. Thankfully, he survived the war and passed away in 1971.

Giovanni Palatucci was an Italian Police Official and chief of the Foreigners’ Office. He was put in charge of the Adriatic seaport of Fiume (Croatia). In 1938 the anti-Jewish laws were put into place, and he disobeyed said laws. He forged travel papers for hundreds of Jews so that they could flee persecution. In 1943 the government fell and was occupied by the Nazis. He was ordered to arrest the Jews and have them deported to concentration camps. Simply defying orders would have led to his termination and be of no help to the Jews, so he devised and executed a plan to have over 5000 Jews sent to a refugee camp that was managed by his uncle. He then destroyed records of all the refugees, and they were saved from the imminent doom that would have met them in Nazi concentration camps. He died at the age of 35 after being arrested by the Gestapo and sent to a concentration camp for his actions. He knew what his actions would cost him if exposed, and yet he charged ahead with a bravery that would put us all to shame.

Chiune Sugihara was a Japanese Diplomat. As vice-consul for a Japanese consulate in Lithuania, he kept his country updated on the actions of both the Nazis, and the Soviet troops. Once the Nazi invasion of Lithuania began, the Jews were scrambling for ways to escape the Nazis that were rounding them up like cattle. It is unknown how many Jews Chiune saved, some speculate that it was 5000, others believe a more accurate number to be 10,000. He was issuing visas to anyone that came to him, writing them for 18 hours a day, violating direct orders in the name of human compassion. Even while he was en route to the train station after being reassigned, he was handwriting visas and throwing them out the car window for desperate Jews. Many of the passports in the crowd were still unstamped when he boarded the train, so he threw his official stamp into the crowd for them to use. Hence why the number of Jews he saved is impossible to even try to calculate.

“I cannot allow these people to die, people who have come to me for help with death staring them in the eyes. Whatever punishment may be imposed on me, I know I should follow my conscience.” – Chiune Sugihara

Chiune Sugihara was finally recognized in 1985 for his heroic rescue of so many Jews. He passed away in 1986.

Does it not concern anyone else that these men disobeyed direct orders, put their lives on the line, one actually losing his life, and yet we don’t speak out about issues because we don’t want to be “divisive” with our dinner party friends? Does that not get to anyone else? Slavery, persecution, etc. are taking place all over the world, and who we vote for decides if we’re going to continue financially supporting those acts. You don’t even have to hide persecuted individuals in your home and disobey the laws of your country, you just have to say the truth! You just have to speak! Educate! Stand up for what is right!

In the next year many families will face financial turmoil. They’ll take on an insurance payment that is equal to, or possibly exceeds, the cost of a mortgage payment. They’ll cut, scrimp, and will no longer save. Is being low on money the worst thing to happen to a person? FAR from it. But this is just the beginning. Families will not be able to afford their deductibles, people will go without healthcare. Healthcare will continue to decline as it becomes less care and more of a conveyor belt health service. People will become numbers, elderly will be declined the care they desperately need. Businesses will start preparing for the ACA, jobs will be cut, unemployment compensation will be insufficient. Families will lose their homes or get creative in their living situations. These are just the facts that we have to step back and recognize them for what they are.

How many of us have heard (or said), “God is in control, I’m not going to concern myself with worldly issues.”?? I know I have heard it PLENTY of times.

The problem: The bible is full of action against evil.

God is in control, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a responsibility to be a voice for the voiceless. As I said earlier about my need for rationality, I look at the world and ponder the theory that silence from Christians is what’s needed, but I find that ideal lacking in any evidence that would substantiate its viability. I’m not asking you to spend this year hiding Jewish refugees in your walls, I’m just asking you to have conversations, to try and educate those around you. Speak the truth. If you don’t know what to speak of, then research the issues plaguing this nation, connect with those who know about those issues and ask questions so that YOU can spread the word. What our government is doing to healthcare has happened elsewhere. What our government is doing to guns has happened elsewhere. What our government is doing with police power has happened elsewhere.

All of those attempts to “reduce crime”, “increase affordable healthcare”, and “make the streets safer” don’t work. In all actuality, those supposed “efforts” make things far more dangerous, careless, and elitist. If you pointed to a wolf and said “that’s a sheep, trust me!”, I still wouldn’t approach the “sheep” because common sense says that it will kill me. Pointing to the ACA and saying that it’s affordable healthcare doesn’t make it affordable, nor does it guarantee that my family will receive healthcare; as a matter of fact, it does the opposite for many hard working families.

Prepare yourself for the midterm elections, learn about your candidates. Don’t just research their opinion on one topic that will benefit your wallet, research what they stand for and how it will affect the rest of the world. The powerful governments “elsewhere” were strengthened by a populous that only cared about themselves, let’s not be that populous. I’m going to make a good number of blog posts about some of the candidates. If you live in a state and would like specific information on candidates, please message us.

Take a moment to thank God for men like Trocme, Palatucci, and Sugihara. Our world can be a dim place, it can be filled with overwhelming hatred and a callousness that makes us weep for the innocent lives that become trapped within its grip for reasons unanswered. But there are heroes that forge through the darkness regardless of what lies wait in the shadows, those men exist in our world today as well. Would you have the fortitude to be one of them?

Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign in sabotage.” – C.S. Lewis

-  MB

Hero