Facing The Giants - The Little Movie That Could

This is an excellent new movie that starts tomorrow. I posted on this movie back in June when it received a PG rating from the MPAA for too much God. Yep, that's right, too much God.

The early reviews have been fantastic - see here, here, here and here. What's more impressive to me is that this movie was produced by a church. A church?? Yep, a church. Sherwood Baptist in Albany Georgia to be exact. I would go into detail about the production behind the movie, but it would best serve you to click on the banner above and go to the site and read it for yourself.

Also, check out this clip from the movie. If this is just a sample of what we can expect, then it should be good. It's about time we get good entertainment with a GOOD message.

Now Playing: "Faith Like That" by Jonah 33

Technorati: Facing The Giants, Sherwood Baptist

Winning on Wednesday - Where Would You Be?

As in last week's post, the topic for this week is something that's been on my mind for the last week. Hat tip to Kevin for sending this link to me. Even if you don't necessarily believe in God, just entertain the following thoughts for me. What if God exists? What if everything written about Jesus is true? What if Jesus is coming back one day, but we don't know when? Watch the video and then I'll continue.



So, bearing in mind the thoughts I asked you to entertain. Are you ready? If you were sitting in that church on the day Jesus came back, where would you be? With Jesus or standing alone? What if you were sitting at a football stadium or on the beach or sleeping in? Where would you be?

If you haven't figured it out by now, I am a Christian. I believe that being a Christian is a state of being and not merely a label. One of the simplest ways to outline what I believe is stated below. It's called the Roman Road because it's all found in the New Testament book of Romans:

Romans 5:8 - But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

The reason this is the first part to understand, is that this states a very important basis. Before we choose God, He chose us. Even if we NEVER choose God, He still chose us. To think that Jesus died for us even before and in spite of the fact that we have the free will to accept this gift or ignore it.

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Simply, no one is perfect. Not me (definitely), and not even Billy Graham, who I would say is a person that is universally respected. All of us come up short when measured against God's standard. But that's not all.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We all (I would guess) earn wages. Wages are what we are paid for what we do. Our sin (defined by American Heritage as "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.") are the things we do that earn us Death. Not just physical death, but Spiritual death. God has offered us a free gift (we'll get to that in a minute) to avoid this Spiritual death.

Romans 10:9-10 - 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So, how do we get this free gift? Admission. Admit we've sinned - done wrong - when compared to what God expects of us. Then, we have to wholeheartedly believe that Jesus died to take the punishment (wages) for our sin and then God raised Him from the dead. In the simplest language, something like this

"God, I know I've screwed up. I've done lots of things that you don't like. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I believe you sent Jesus to take my place and die for me. Thank you. I believe you raised Him from the dead. I accept your gift of eternal life and want Jesus to be the main thing in my life."

So where does that get you? Let's look back to Romans again.

Romans 10:13 - for Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

That's the promise of it all. All are accepted. No one is rejected. That being said, let me take you back to the Bible verse from the video.

For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. - Matthew 24:27

Are you ready?

Now Playing: "Open Wide" by Future of Forestry

Technorati: Winning On Wednesday, Christian, Roman Road, Christianity, Jesus Christ

Former President Clinton's Interview...Talk About Reality TV!

If you want to watch the now infamous part of the interview between Fox News' Chris Wallace and former President Bill Clinton, go here:

But here's the transcript of where, I believe, it got the most heated.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is ...

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no ...

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?"

I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"

I want to know how many people you asked ...

It appears to me that one of President Clinton's biggest issues is that he believes he's being singled out. He believes (truthfully or untruthfully) that Fox News hasn't asked tough questions of anyone in the Bush administration. Well, let's take a look at just some of the interviews by Chris Wallace, the same Fox News journalist.

What about this interview with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace:

WALLACE: Let's turn, if we may, to the broader War on Terror. During his surprise visit to Afghanistan this week, President Bush flatly predicted that bin Laden and his gang will be either captured or killed. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It's not a matter of if they're captured and brought to justice, it's when they're brought to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: General, after more than four years of hunting for bin Laden, is that just rhetoric, or are you really getting closer?

PACE: It's not rhetoric. I could not tell you we're getting closer. I can tell you we continue every day with every resource we have to track down bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, so the president of the United States is saying what is true, which is that we will continue to hunt these folks.

WALLACE: He says it's not a matter of if, it's when. I mean, it's been more than four years, so how can you really say when?

PACE: I can't say when, but I can say it will eventually happen.

WALLACE: Why?

PACE: Why? Because we're going to continue until we find them.

Or this part of an interview with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:

WALLACE: But I think here's the concern a lot of people have. When we went in there, allegedly to remove the weapons of mass destruction, people understood that as the war on terror. Even when we deposed Saddam Hussein, people understood that as the war on terror. When we were fighting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, people understood that as the war on terror.

Now we've got Shiites fighting Sunnis, Muqtada al-Sadr -- this are rivalries that go back centuries, tribal rivalries, religious rivalries. Aren't we involved in a terrible case of mission creep here that has nothing to do with the war on terror?

RICE: Chris, it is the Iraqis who will have to settle their own differences. And, indeed, that's why they talk about a process of national reconciliation. That's why they're trying to build security forces that bridge sectarian divides.

Our role, though, was to indeed remove Saddam Hussein. And it's hard to imagine that the world could possibly have gotten better with Saddam Hussein in power, that the Middle East could possibly have gotten better...

WALLACE: Is it our responsibility to solve these ethnic, sectarian problems?

RICE: It is clearly Iraq's responsibility, Iraqis' responsibilities to do that. We...

WALLACE: But we're involved in the fighting.

RICE: Well, but we have to give them an environment in which they can do that. We have to help them build security forces. We have to help them build political institutions.

And, Chris, it would simply be wrong to say that the only problem in Iraq is sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. There is still a considerable problem of terrorism from extremists who simply want to see Iraq be part of a Middle East in which the bin Ladens of the world control, not the Malikis, the moderates of the Middle East.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, there is Afghanistan, which used to be the safe haven for Al Qaida and where some of its leaders are still at large.

On Friday, a suicide bomber -- and we have the pictures here -- attacked an American military convoy in Kabul, killing 16 people. The Taliban, which most Americans thought we wiped out back in 2001, is back on the march in the south. And NATO forces, this week, are asking for more troops.

Secretary Rice, why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan?

RICE: Well, it was not possible, Chris, to, quote, "finish the job" in Afghanistan. This is going to be also a long process of bringing stability to Afghanistan.

We have made enormous progress over the last 4 1/2 years in Afghanistan. You actually have a national government that is elected in Afghanistan, whose forces are fighting alongside of us rather than the Taliban, which was both harboring Al Qaida and giving them support. You now have for the people of Afghanistan the possibility of a better life. Women are not being beaten in stadiums that were given to the Taliban by the international community.

You have a situation in which, yes, the Taliban is trying to make a strike at the Afghan government because they do not want it to succeed. But the Taliban is not going to succeed. And they're not going to succeed because you have strong NATO and coalition forces and U.S. forces that are beating them back. The Taliban is taking a beating in this.

And, Chris, I want to be very clear. The notion that somehow this is a strategic threat to the Karzai government, I think this is not the case. You are talking about a Taliban that is able, particularly in the south, to wreak a lot of havoc and to bring death and destruction to civilians. But they are being beaten back.

WALLACE: But, again -- and just this week, the head British commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, said -- and let's put it up on the screen -- "The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis."

I'm sure a lot of Americans are saying, isn't it a -- we had them on the run. We had the Taliban completely disrupted. Isn't it a failure to have allowed the Taliban to regroup?

Or this excerpt from an interview with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:I know it's long, but it should make the point.

WALLACE: I just want to press this a little bit more to ask you, though, I think what the families said they liked so much, what they were gratified to hear from Clarke, was a statement not just of sorrow but of personal responsibility.

RUMSFELD: It had that, you could feel it when you showed that. And I...

WALLACE: Do you think the president should do the same?

RUMSFELD: I can't speak to that. I think the president has recognized the failure that existed and the concern he has for those people and the fact that the government, our government, was there and that attack took place. I don't know quite what else one would do.

I've talked to many of the families that were killed at the Pentagon and their loved ones. I've talked to a few of the people from New York. And it is a heartbreaking thing to see the suffering and the grieving that they feel.

WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story -— is he telling the truth, or is he pushing an agenda.

What do you make of his basic charge that, pre-9/11, that this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda?

RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the man. I've probably met him, been in meetings with him two or three times. But it seems to me that apparently he was there for 10 years.

And the reality is that terrorists can attack any time at any minute, 24 hours a day, using a variety of techniques, in any place at all.

And it's not possible to defend in every place, against every technique, against every conceivable approach.

Now, what does that mean? It means that you can't stop every terrorist attack. We know that throughout history. Innocent men, women and children are going to be killed if terrorists are determined to do it.

What you must do, then, is to go after the terrorists where they are and get them before they have that opportunity to have the advantage of an attack.

WALLACE: But let me follow up on that, if I can, the staff, this is what you told them in private.

Let's put it up here if we can: "He," Rumsfeld, "did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11, other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden." He said that, "DOD, the Department of Defense, before 9/11, was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats."

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

RUMSFELD: Well, Chris, if you look at how our government is organized historically, the Department of Justice has the responsibility for law enforcement in the United States. The Department of Defense is, in fact, by law, under the Posse Comitatus law, prohibited from engaging in front-line, law-enforcement, police- type activities.

WALLACE: But the terrorists were based overseas. These are...

RUMSFELD: The terrorists were in the United States. They used a U.S. airplane, and they attacked a U.S. target. And those are things that outside the purview of the Department of Defense.

WALLACE: But what about...

RUMSFELD: Let me just make sure you understand this.

The way the government instructions were laid out, the Department of State had the responsibility for the diplomatic side of it; the Department of Justice has the responsibility for the law enforcement side and for domestic intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency has responsibility for foreign intelligence; and the Department of Defense has responsibility for external threats and force protection.

Now, it was not something that the Department of Defense historically, in our history, was organized, trained and equipped to do. We were organized, trained and equipped to fight armies and navies and air forces, not to do individual manhunts. In fact, there have been occasions in the history of the department, when the department was chastised for investigating things locally, if you'll recall, during the Army investigations back in the '60s in the Vietnam War period.

WALLACE: But looking back, sir -— and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight -— it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean, what you ended up doing, in the end, was going after Al Qaeda where it lived.

RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go after...

WALLACE: And the question is, pre-9/11, should you have been thinking more about that?

RUMSFELD: Well, we were thinking about what to do about Al Qaeda. Any suggestion that the administration was not would just be incorrect.

Now, as I think it was Rich Armitage said, were we able to stop that attack? The answer is no. Were we ahead of those particular terrorists and what they were doing? Obviously not.

George Tenet put it well, I thought, when he said, "Look" -— they said, "Why'd it happen?" He said, "Because we didn't have a source inside that particular terrorist cell." That would have enabled it to have been stopped.

WALLACE: Clarke makes one other specific charge that I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to here today.

He says that on September 12th, the day after the attack, that when all of the evidence was pointing to Al Qaeda, that you wanted to hit Iraq. Let's look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARKE: Rumsfeld said, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." And I said, "Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, true or false?

RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know the context that he said that. I said publicly at one stage during our effort in Afghanistan, which was of course a highly successful effort to deal with the Al Qaeda there and run them out and deny them that haven, that Afghanistan had run out of targets. That is a correct quote. It's out of context here. But it is a correct quote.

If you think about it, the United States government made a decision to go into Afghanistan, not into Iraq, after 9/11. So the implication of what he's saying obviously misunderstands what actually took place.

WALLACE: But specifically, if I may, sir, what he is saying is, on the afternoon of September 12th, when all of the evidence was pointing to afghanistan, that you wanted to hit Iraq. And he compared it to attacking Mexico after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor.

RUMSFELD: He also quotes me on September 4th, as saying some things in a meeting that I didn't attend. So it's hard for me to explain a person who would characterize a conversation in a meeting that I was not even in the room or the building when it supposedly took place.

These three interviews are just the result of a few quick searches. There may be others with other Fox News reporters.

After looking at these interviews, it appears to me that former President Clinton's remarks about a "conservative hit job" and his beliefs that no tough questions are asked of the Bush administration don't stand up to even a quick test.

Hmmm...it'll be interesting to watch the fallout after people have a chance to digest the interview.

Now Playing: "Lift Me Up" by Benjamin Gate

Technorati: Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace, Fox News, Bill Clinton interview

Federal Government Collecting Record Taxes?

First, it was the report that overall demand for oil has declined in 2006. Now, there's this report.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday. Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said. Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.

Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.

Wait a minute. Tax receipts are up? How can that be so when the Democrats say the economy is in the tank? There is one other thing that confuses me. Weren't there tax cuts? Weren't those tax cuts supposed to add to the Federal Deficit and REDUCE overall tax revenues? I wonder if this information will get much play during an election year. Nah, I doubt it. It's good news.

From an Economics standpoint, this proves a significant point. Increased taxation actually damages the economy and removes available investment and growth from the market. When tax burdens are reduced to a reasonable (yeah, before you start, Reasonable is a subjective concept) level. Businesses and individuals are able to redirect the tax savings into investments, purchases and the like. All of which add to the economy. Business investment leads to more jobs, thus higher payroll tax revenues for the government. Personal purchases add to the sales tax collections and ultimately drive demand for increased production from businesses. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

Watch this election year though. See if this information gets used by any of your candidates and note how they use it.

Now Playing: "Stretched Over" by The Myriad

Technorati: tax revenues, tax cuts, taxes

Winning on Wednesday - Words to Live By

The following passage has really been on my mind for the past few weeks. Our church has been going through a transition period related to staff. As usual, change is not always easily accepted by all involved. I believe that even if you aren't a Christian, the following passage contains excellent instructions for how we should live. However, as you read, be sure to consider verses 9 and 10 as the foundation for the rest of the passage. More comments to follow:

1 Thessalonians 5:9-24

9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. 12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. 23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

Pretty good stuff huh? We are expected to encourage one another. We are also expected to respect those that are set aside as leaders. However, the verses of encouragement are quickly followed by verses of conviction. See v. 14 and 15. While we are expected to encourage those that need it and have patience with others, we are expected also to admonish (which means to chastise or to rebuke) those that are idle (not serving). Wow, you mean I have to do more than just sit at church? Not only that, but I shouldn't get back at others for the things they've done to me. I should do as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

From a spiritual standpoint, the last few verses are important. Read them again. See what I mean, we're called to allow the Spirit to work and not quench (you know, what you do when you quench your thirst...think crush, or end, or terminate) what the Spirit is doing. Are we to accept everything we hear? No. We are to test everything - test it against the Truth we know. Then keep what is good (what passes the test) and abstain (stay away from) the evil.

Lastly, I love the promise of verse 24, "He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it." This simply restates what I should know, God is Faithful. He will always fulfill His promises.

Now Playing: "Gravity" by Circleslide

Technorati: Winning on Wednesday

Oil Demand Down?

UPDATE: Thanks to Chris with the sharp eye for catching this one. Read the last line of the quote below. I agree with Chris, I seriously doubt it's 800,000 million barrels. CBS probably meant 800,000 barrels.

Since gas prices spiked after Katrina, the MSM has been regularly reporting on the rampant growth in the demand for oil. The United States is a huge oil consumer, but what doesn't get much attention is that the booming economies of China and India are requiring more and more petroleum based products. Anyway, back to the story...

Even though the MSM would like for us to believe that the growth in demand for oil is a runaway train, that doesn't appear to be true. OPEC recently reduced their forecast for oil demand. This story details the changes:

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cut its 2006 crude-oil demand forecast to an average of 28.9 million barrels a day, down 200,000 barrels a day from last month. In 2007, the demand for OPEC crude is expected to average 28.1 million barrels a day, which is expected to be 800,000 million barrels a day below 2006.

That is a significant decline.

There have been many arguments about why the oil has spiked so high over the last year. From an Economics standpoint, there is really only one reason: Speculation. However, that Speculation is dependent upon fear of a disruption in supply. Whether that disruption occurs because of events in the Middle East, a hurricane in the Gulf, or some other unknown event, that lingering fear allows market Speculators to bid the price of oil up. This affects everything from gasoline to heating oil to natural gas. I believe the over-zealous Speculators may have created a situation that will ultimately slow down our economy.

Now Playing: "Stand in the Rain" by SuperChick

Technorati: oil, oil demand, OPEC, gas

New Feature - Winning on Wednesday

Ok, so what is it? Well, Winning on Wednesday will be a new post that will appear every Wednesday (or Tuesday night like this one). These posts will be geared toward providing a bit of midweek encouragement or perhaps even a challenge. Why am I doing this? I need to be more diligent in my Bible Study and since I will be posting each week, I will need to do my "homework" before I post.

Where did the name come from? Glad you asked and it is the subject of this first post.

Philippians 3:12-14

12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Specifically, look at verse 14, "I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."

I guess it is summed up in a phrase I heard a couple years ago, "Yes, God loves you just the way you are, but He loves you too much to let you stay that way." I'm not perfect. None of us are. We haven't arrived; we're not "all that". We have a lot of work to do. Even though Christ's blood covers our sin, accepting Him into our lives is still only the first step in the Christian race. Continuing the race analogy Paul used in Philippians, as Christians we've only begun. The race will not be over until we cross the finish line into Heaven. We can never rest on our laurels, celebrate what we have done, relish in our "accomplishments" as a Christian.

Paul urged us to forget what is behind us. I believe this refers not only to our life before we became a Christian but also the accomplishments we have made as a Christian. We must never become comfortable, because the race is still ongoing. There is still work to do. I encourage you to press on and do not give up.

If you find these posts encouraging, they will be tagged "Winning on Wednesday" over on Technorati.

Now Playing: "Gravity" by Circleslide

Technorati: Winning on Wednesday

9-11 Anniversary - Where Does Our Hope Come From?

I wasn't planning on posting today, but a post by Chris prompted a comment and I decided to repost that comment here.

Skillet released "You Are My Hope" on the Alien Youth CD back in 2001. From Connection magazine:

"Although never intended as an anthem for the hurting, the soft rock ballad, "You Are My Hope," struck responsive chords in the aftermath of September 11, addressing the issue of God's presence in changing and turbulent times. Gary Walsh, program director at Jacksonville's WBGB, created a special version of the song intersplicing excerpts from Billy Graham's memorial speech at the National Cathedral and sound bytes from President Bush."

If you can find it, it really hits home. Anyway, here are the original lyrics.

Times are hard
Times have changed
Don't you say
But I keep holding on to you
It's hard to keep the faith alive day to day
Leaning on the strength I've found in you
You're the hope of all the Earth

You are my hope
You are my strength
You're everything
Everything I need
You are my hope
You are my life
You are my hope
You are my hope

Far beyond what I can see or comprehend
Etching your eternity in me
Nations stream and angels sing, "Jesus reigns"
And every knee bows down
You're the hope of all the Earth

You are my hope
You are my strength
You're everything
Everything I need
You are my hope
You are my life
You are my hope
You are my hope

Carry on and I sing of how
You love and I love you now
All the times that I start to sink
You come and you rescue me
You are my hope
You are my hope

Regardless of what happens in Life, even 9/11, God is our only Hope.

God promises us the following, in my favorite passage:

Psalm 121
I lift up my eyes to the hills—
where does my help come from?

2 My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

3 He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber;

4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

5 The LORD watches over you—
the LORD is your shade at your right hand;

6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.

7 The LORD will keep you from all harm—
he will watch over your life;

8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.



Now Playing: "Lets Roll" by DC Talk

Technorati: September 11, Skillet, You Are My Hope

Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) on Taxation

Since this is an election year, I've been doing some research on the candidates I have to choose from. Of particular interest in our area is the race between Rep. John Spratt (Incumbent Democrat) and Ralph Norman (Challenger Republican) for the SC District 5 House seat. I, personally, would like to see Ralph Norman win this seat. To be fair, John Spratt is not an extreme liberal. In fact, I would agree with a recent Charlotte Observer story that cited the following:

The Almanac of American Politics describes Spratt's voting record as "moderate, a bit to the left of the middle."

That's where he and I diverge. Some of his "left of the middle" positions are different from mine.

However, one primary area in which I differ from Rep. Spratt is his stance on taxation. I am for HR25, also known as the FairTax. In a nutshell, the FairTax replaces the current out-of-control IRS driven Income Tax situation with a simple retail sales tax on new goods. Before you begin complaining, note I said replaces. Under the plan you, as a taxpayer, would receive 100% of your check. The tax would then be only collected when you consume (read: purchase new goods or services). There would no longer be costs associated with filing tax returns to get money back that the government has held away from you during the year (interest free I might add!). There would be no penalty for saving or investing your money. Currently, you pay income tax on interest earned. Another benefit would be no tax shelters, no tax evasion, etc. Those that purchase pay taxes, those that don't - well, don't.

Anyway, Rep. Spratt is against HR 25 which is odd considering the following letter that he co-signed with other Democratic legislators. From Rep. Nancy Pelosi's website:

December 15, 2004

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

As we approach a new session of Congress, Democrats and Republicans agree that we must reform the tax code now. Recent statements by Administration officials indicate that you may postpone the appointment of a tax reform advisory panel and may delay sending Congress a proposal until 2006. We are writing to encourage you to act now so that tax reform can move us toward a system that is more fair, less complex, and that adequately funds the budget without perennial deficits.

Democrats are committed to the following principles:

* Fairness: Tax reform must not result in tax increases on middle-income families, and we must uphold our commitment to progressive taxation. Millions of middle-income Americans are paying more than their fair share as a result of an overly complicated, loophole-ridden tax code. This tax burden will only increase as more families are ensnared by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). By 2010, the AMT is expected to hit 33 million taxpayers, up from just 1 million in 1999. We believe that tax reform must include a long-term solution to protect middle-income taxpayers from the AMT’s unintended consequences.

* Simplification: We must make the tax code far less complex. The tax code and its regulations currently span more than 60,000 pages, thousands of which have been added since the mid-1990s. It takes the average family nearly 7 1⁄2 hours longer to complete their tax return than it did in 1994, and tax changes made since 2001 have only served to further complicate the tax code. The following example illustrates how the current tax code is unnecessarily complex. Parents with children in college must choose between two non-refundable tax credits and the higher education deduction, all of which are calculated differently with different income limits and phase-outs. Moreover, parents saving for their children to attend college have to decipher three different saving mechanisms. It is a taxpayer’s nightmare.

* Fiscal Responsibility: We must not add to the deficit; indeed, we must steadily reduce it. Revenue neutrality is especially important given the historic level of debt. Democrats are committed to reforming the tax code without burying our future under a mountain of national debt.

We look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis to simplify the tax code for all Americans. Together, we can create a tax system that reflects common values and creates a more vibrant economy.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Sincerely,



Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader

Steny H. Hoyer
Democratic Whip

Robert Menendez
Democratic Caucus Chairman

Charles B. Rangel
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means

John M. Spratt, Jr.
Ranking Member, House Budget Committee

George Miller
Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Rosa L. DeLauro
Co-Chair Steering and Policy

What's odd is that the FairTax addresses all of those concerns in the best possible way, from my point of view. However, Rep. Spratt is still against it. I've written a letter to Rep. Spratt in support of the FairTax which addresses the above concerns. I may post it in the near future.

On a side note, something else that concerns me is who signed the letter with Rep. Spratt. I urge you to read the list of co-signers and do a little research into their voting records.

Now Playing: "Breathe You In" by Thousand Foot Crutch

Technorati: John Spratt, Ralph Norman, FairTax, Income Tax, AMT

Democrats Nervous About Norman Beating Spratt?

Ok, it's just over 2 months to go until election day and I guess it's time for the candidates to take the gloves off. I was off to the mountains for the Labor Day weekend and missed this little gem from the South Carolina Democratic Party. The SCDP appears to be desperate to find something to trash the Norman campaign. First, the headline:

Norman Plagiarizes Answers to AARP Survey

Hmmm, that's a pretty serious accusation. Plagiarism is a pretty serious offense by anyone. But what does it mean to plagiarize? Well, from the American Heritage dictionary over at Yahoo reference (see...proper citation):

VERB:
pla·gia·rized , pla·gia·riz·ing , pla·gia·riz·es
VERB:
tr.

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).

VERB:
intr.

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

So, what did Ralph Norman allegedly plagiarize? Let's read the first paragraph of the press release (which I should note is FROM the Democratic Party):

Columbia, SC - —In a recent AARP Survey, Republican Ralph Norman, along with six other Republican candidates, plagiarized his Party'’s talking points to answer questions related to Medicare, Social Security, insurance plans, and retirement. All seven responses to the survey were nearly word-for-word, originating from National Republican Congressional Committee talking points.

Oh, my goodness!!! The HORROR! A Republican candidate actually standing on the Republican Party Platform. Oh, wait a minute.....that's what party candidates are supposed to do, agree with the party with which they are affiliated. I don't think I would make this into a PLAGIARISM accusation...but, that's just me. So, where's the problem?

Patrick Norton, spokesman for the South Carolina Democratic Party, said Norman'’s plagiarized responses are typical for the Republican.

"“Norman keeps saying it'’s time for a change, but all he has to offer is what his handlers in Washington D.C. tell him to say. South Carolinians deserve change, and not more of the same policies that are running our country and our future into the ground,"” Norton said.

The SCDP is right, Norman is saying it's time for a change. A change AWAY from John Spratt.

Oh, by the way, the press release linked to above does include a quote from Ralph Norman where the Party is criticizing his "independence":

'"I'll be an independent. You have to be today," he asked. "‘The party's not always right.’"'

Hey, Norton, you silly little spokesperson, it is possible to agree with your Party on some topics and it appears that Norman agrees with his Party on these issues.

Seems to me this whole Plagiarism charge is a Dagger of the Mind caused by the pressure to defend against a worthy opponent.

Now Playing: "Please" by Turn Off The Stars

Technorati: Ralph Norman, John Spratt, Congressional Races

Free Speech or Over The Line?

You may have seen this story already. Anyway, Channel 4 out of the UK is running with a moview Death of a President, which is based on the fictional premise of our current President George W. Bush being assassinated in November of 2007. So what do you think?

Well, Foxnews has a really good story on this and provides some good background from the producers.


Now Playing: "SONGTITLE" by ARTIST

Technorati: windfall profits