Kenya Reflections: Part 1 (On Being Different)

Happy, Hopeful

Thoughts from my wife, God bless her:

“When I was in Kenya, I didn’t blend very well. In fact I was an anomaly everywhere I went. I saw a few more white women in Kisumu, but they were just passing through, and so was I. In the villages and schools we visited with people, and most of them were glad we were there. I tried to meet people and just be friendly, but language was often difficult. Surprisingly, it seemed to me that the biggest barrier was shyness. I guess it makes sense that I would not be shy after having traveled so far to visit with the Christians of Kenya, but they were often shy of being met. I was a curiosity, a source of blessing, and a window to the world beyond, but I was unfamilar and imposing. I bungled customs; trying to take the basin from the woman who held it while I washed my hands (I figured it was her to turn wash so we could eat together), sitting in the middle of the church instead of in the seats that had been reserved for the “honored guests,” insisting on helping to carry water jugs with some other women. The Kenyans often wished to maintain a respectful distance – not all of them, and not in an unfriendly way – and I spent the first few days crashing recklessly from one awkward situation to another. I had traveled a long way to close that distance, not reinforce it, but as the week wore on I became more accustomed both to the part the Kenyans expected me to play and to being laughed at when I just didn’t quite “fit” somehow.

Now that I am home, it is clear to me that this was the greatest blessing and revelation of the journey for me personally. Yes, we saw scores of people dedicate themselves to Christ nearly everywhere we went (literally SCORES, as in multiple groups of 20). Yes, we witnessed miraculous healing. God even allowed me the assurance that a young girl was ushered into the kingdom of heaven after she died on the side of the road. None of these things are commonplace, and all of them are powerful. But far and away the most powerful experience for me is the first hand knowledge that I can be that different and still be me.

I remember when I wrestled with the decision to let God lead me. I wondered, as I think most do, how I could do God’s will and still be me? If He had jurisdiction over everything, did I get to pick anything I did? God is so big, I thought that I would just be swallowed up and become some kind of religious automoton. I couldn’t see how I could let God be My Lord in practice without losing something of myself, as if lordship over myself was the essence of who I am. This is why one must follow Christ by faith. It isn’t until after you give God the benefit of the doubt and throw caution to the wind that you realize those fears are completely unfounded. No one can tell you how it is – you either give God the keys and see how it is, or you don’t and you continue to wonder.

At any rate, being different is often uncomfortable. In Kenya, I didn’thave a choice – I was different by definition. Even if I spent years in Kenya and immersed myself in the cultures and languages, I would still stick out like a sore thumb. But in the States, we have to choose to be different, and it’s hard. Even Jesus acknowledged how difficult it was for Him to go back to the people He had grown up with and be different. There are understood expectations. There are assumed modes of conduct. We are completely unconscious of them until we feel the pull to be different. Then even the smallest changes seem to bump up against an insurmountable barrier. Being different feels forced – imposed – because we have to choose it andit’s a lot of work. To go to Kenya and find that “different” can be a partof my identity rather than an addition to it, was a real eye-opener. For the first time I realized that “different” and “same” are definitions imposed on people from outside. “Different” is dependent upon the surroundings and has nothing to do with the individual. It has no meaning what so ever without some outside point of reference. Clearly that outside point of reference has no real significance to me personally. I am the same person in Kenya and the States. Why should I shun being “different”? What difference does it make?

What is it about people that we continually see ourselves through the eyes of others? Why do we define ourselves in terms of external factors? Are we so ignorant of what or who we are? Shouldn’t we know ourselves more intimately than our neighbors do? Why then do we look to them in order to assess ourselves? I have now had the first-hand experience of being awkwardly “different” fora week and yet being the “same” person the whole time. It’s embarrassing that I had to travel almost half-way around the world to see how weak those words are. I look around me and see some people striving for “sameness.” Surely they are really after something more solid – unity or fellowship perhaps. Others go out of their way to be shockingly “different,” even if they make sure to do it in groups. Again, they must be looking for something more – maybe recognition or a sense of power. No wonder being different feels forced or imposed – it is. It’s a definition imposed on the individual as a result of comparison with the group. It’s a meaningless assessment of who someone is.

We saw all those people come to Christ because they encountered the Truth about Him and it was compelling. We witnessed salvation and healing because of the power of the faith that followed. In America, those experiences are different. I think about the joy I felt at being a part of it, and I hope I can hang on to “different” even now that I am home. The Truth is still setting me free.”

A Founding Quote

Inspired by a post at Doctor Bulldog and Ronin, highlighting the idiocy of today’s Liberal (in the worst sense of the word) judiciary; and by my observations of Americans’ general and unfortunate ignorance of history, I bring you a Presidential Proclamation:

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request, that a day may be recommended, to be observed by the People of the United States, with religious solemnity, as a day of public Humiliation, and Prayer; and whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed, to offer, at one and the same time, their common vows and adorations to Almighty God, on the solemn occasion produced by the war, in which he has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign power to involve these United States;

I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next, as a convenient day to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of mankind, the public homage due to his holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasures; of seeking His merciful forgiveness, His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment; and especially of offering fervent supplications, that in the present season of calamity and war, He would take the American People under his peculiar care and protection; that he would guide their public councils, animate their patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord, and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion [which religion do you think he had in mind…Secularism perhaps?], to do to others as they would require others to do to them [oh wait…which religion teaches that?]; and finally, that , turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of Peace.

Given at Washington the 9th day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twelve.

James Madison.

Not only was it written by the Architect of the Constitution and the man who proposed the Bill of Rights (First Amendment anyone?), but was nearly coincident with the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Food for thought.

Big Thank-You to Wallbuilders for source material!

What If?

Hypothetically speaking, what if those crazy “Christianists” took over the government of the Unites States. 

And again hypothetically, what if the new So-Far-Right-They’re-Behind-the-Sunrise Congress appropriated government money (that’s taxes, for any uninformed) and granted – say, $38 Million* – to build a new church somewhere? 

And what if, based on that success, they proceeded to grant a $30-Million-per-year-for-seven-years* boon to a Catholic Priest, SPECIFICALLY  to assist him in evangelizing, and threw in another $89 Million* to build a church?

And then what if, getting even crazier, the Congress started GRANTING LAND to religious institutions, again specifically for evangelism or church-building?

Yeah…what if Congress did all those things?  Those would all be violations of the First Amendment ‘Establishment Clause’ (wall of separation, and all that) right?

Just wondering.

QOTD – How big is 1.9 trillion

An hour is a relatively short amount of time.  10 hours is a normal workday for me.  16 hours is a tiresomely long workday.  24 hours is, of course, a standard Day.  A week is comprised of 168 hours.  Average month is 720, and a year is 8766 (including the 1/4 day that we only count every so often).

The Obama-Pelose-Reid unholy triad just upped the Government’s borrowing limit by $1.9 Trillion dollars….the largest debt limit increase in U.S. history.

The tie-in is the QOTD, courtesy of the AP.

“1.9 trillion hours ago, or almost 220 million years ago, dinosaurs were just beginning to dominate the Earth.” 

Let me put that another way.  I’ll be 41 years old in just a few days…that means that I was born 359,406 hours ago (give or take).  Put that in TRILLIONS, we get 0.00000036 trillion hours.  If you’re 40-ish, think about how many HOURS you’ve lived…jeez, just think about how many hours you’ve wasted…and compare that to the QOTD.  Even if you’re not a math genius, that number is staggering. 

Looking at it another way, fmr President Bush and the attendant Congress spent money like a drunken sailor, a statement with which nearly everyone – Right and Left – would agree.  President Obama now wants to increase that by 270%, to an unprecedented level, in order to institute programs and policies which history has shown numerous times to be ineffective at best, lethal at worst.

So…at this point I’ve blathered such that I can’t recall my point of intent (I bet being up for 23 hours doesn’t help)…but what I want to say right now is this:  Mr. President, PLEASE learn a history lesson, and STOP trying to spend us out of our current slowdown.  While you and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid tend to characterize your collectively proposed profligacy as “investment’, both history and human nature should show you that these massive expenditures are as wise as setting all of that cash on fire.  Entitlements breed dependency which breeds need for more entitlements, ad infinitum.  Excesive taxation breeds evasion which breeds government’s need for higher taxation, again ad infinitum.  You’re so enamored with “sustainability”…how about we focus on a sustainable economy?  The path you’ve chosen to pursue leads only, and inexorably, to ruin.

What else is there to say, but God Help Us All.

Point to Ponder

This is a short excerpt from David Barton’s little book America:  To Pray or Not To Pray (pp 15-19 in the version I had).  Emphases are mine.

…eight of the nine Justices on the 1962-63 Supreme Court [that is, the Warren Court that Teh One said didn’t go far enough – GdB] had been appointed to the Court following an extended history of political rather than judicial experience. Chief Justice Earl Warren had been the Governor of California for ten years prior to his appointment; Justice Hugo Black had been a U. S. Senator for ten years; Justice Felix Frankfurter had been an assistant to the Secretary of Labor and a founding member of the ACLU; Justice Arthur Goldberg had been the Secretary of Labor; Justice William Douglas was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to his appointment. All of the Justices except one had similar political backgrounds. Justice Potter Stewart, a federal judge for four years prior to his appointment, was the only member of the Court with extended federal Constitutional experience prior to his appointment. Interestingly, he was also the only Justice who objected to the removal of prayer and Bible reading.  … June 25, 1962, in Engel v. Vitale,  the Supreme Court [Warren court] forbade the inclusion of religious activities in major activities of daily student life by striking down school prayer and Bible reading. Never before in the history of our nation had any branch of our government taken such a stand.

Eight out of the nine “justices” on the Warren Court were UNQUALIFIED for the job.  They were not Constitutional scholars – not even JUDGES – but rather politicians.

Today’s courts frequently state that they are compelled by previous decisions to rule in a certain manner, the so-called “Wall of Separation” doctrine being one of them.  Interestingly,

…in Engel v. Vitale, only last year, these principles [the separation of prayer from the classroom] were so universally recognized that the Court, without citation of single case … reaffirmed them. (School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203, 220-221, 1963)

Did you catch that?  The Engel case which banned school prayer did not cite even ONE precedent to back up the ruling.  Stare decisis has become a handy excuse to keep Constitutionally-questionable policies and practices in place.

Let me suggest to any visitors here to read Mr. Barton’s book cited above, or even better one called “Original Intent”.  You will see that the reason the Warren court did not cite any precedents is that the precedents were all against them.

Just something to think about.

Who’s Racist?

A simple question, brought to us by Ya’akov Kirschen , courtesy of Ethel Fenig of AT.

Ethel points out, as I have on several occasions:

Yes folks, most Arab nations ban Jews from living in their countries; from “moderate” Jordan to “radical” Saudi Arabia, while others place severe personal and religious restrictions on the few remaining Jews.

In contrast, over 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, who are free to practice various forms of Islam or Christianity. But not a peep of protest about the former comes from the mouths or internet sites of the human “rights” crew while shouts of apartheid instantly roar from the anti Israel crowd when Israel takes preventive measures if Israeli Arabs commit terrorism.

Who is racist then?

Maobama Wants YOU

Taken from a commentary at American Thinker.

 

A sitting President of the United States is “organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous.”

[…]

But there is a new organization on the political scene — “Organizing for America,” announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Obama describes OFA as a “grass-roots movement” but OFA is a “project” of the Democratic Natrional Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign “to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda.”

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support — not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic party, but Obama and his “bold plan.” OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the “O”-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.

[…]

You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

[…]

 

So we have a Movement — this is their term, not mine — organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?

Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama’s acolytes to organize “neighborhood by neighborhood”  study anything at school about Mao‘s “Red Guards?

How about Fidel Castro‘s “widespread system of neighborhood informers“?

Or Hugo Chavez‘s use of “neighborhood committees“?

 

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?

Do any of Obama’s pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors? 

Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.

 

And they are coming to have a talk with you.

 

Remember, people, that he stated that he wants a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our MILITARY.  Isn’t this a great way to get that ball rolling, under the guise of a harmless association of mere political supporters?

As Thomas Lifson wrote, “This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.“

A Question of Ignorance

Once again, I’m “inspired” by the Headline Thingy at Hot Air.

This time, it’s related to an interview of one of the early and strong proponents of embryonic stem cell usage/research, former President Clinton.  He was questioned whether the controversy will die down or not – betraying the perspective of the interviewer in the process – that is, the only way for the controversy to diminish is for (in his words) “people [to] come around”.  Obviously he thinks the hubbub is hogwash…not surprising since he works for CNN.  They hire the most interesting people.

But I digress.  Clinton’s statements included the following:

I think – the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. If – particularly if it’s done right. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can – that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this….

…frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized…

…it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized …

But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use…

There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized…

…they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings… [um, hello?  They ARE human — what else could they be, crocodiles?  Great tactical wording, no?]

Do you see the egregious error here?  Or, perhaps I’m giving the Honorable Mr. Clinton more credit that he deserves, and it’s not an error but an intentional misdirection.

For anyone not catching on, I’ll defer to the dictionary, to wit:

Embryo

1. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
2. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

You see, dear Reader, there is no embryo until AFTER fertilization.  I’m assuming here that Clinton does not understand that…which in itself says much about the intellectual calibre of our esteemed leaders.  I’m giving Mr. Clinton the benefit of the doubt here.

As an aside, I’d really like to quibble with the dictionary’s duration of the embryonic stage.  I’ve seen how human an 8-week-old pre-born appears…it’s dishonest in my opinion to still use a term which connotes an unrecognizable clump of cells.

Anyway, the same grace offered to Mr. Clinton can not, however, be extended to Mr. Gupta…or rather DR. Gupta.  Yes, he’s a PHYSICIAN.  Obviously he’s quite aware that an embryo does not exist without fertilization.  Since he did not offer a correction, he must be willingly propagating the misinformation, presumably to further the agenda to which I alluded above. 

All this leads to the “question” in the post title.  How many of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research believe that the cells are actually harvested from some kind of free, unfertilized tissue that no one would have use for anyway?  Would they still be supportive if they understood that these ARE “fertilized and [would] become little babies”?  And how much effort is there to keep the truth of the humanity of these embryos hidden?

Just how ignorant are we?

An Interview with Muhammad

Interesting, and courageous, work by Ehsan Jami.

Dammit…OK, so the embed doesn’t work. Try clicking the image above, or to save time, just click the link below to see it in the context of the Baron’s post (you need to read it anyway).

H/T: GOV

Obama and my Gun

Mr. Obama has already told us, over and over, that he is NOT anti-gun ownership by private citizens (he is against concealed carry however – you can have one as long as whomever is going to attack you knows you’re carrying…and he supports banning handguns), he is NOT anti-2nd Amendment (though he does support restrictions infringements on ownership), and that he is NOT going to come after our guns…or more accurately, that he’d LIKE to, but lacks the votes.

So, in order to quell the ensuing enthusiasm for guns that his “win” has engendered, now he’s asking us not to stock up on those guns that he (sort of) favors.

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”

All the better to round them up later, you see.

The NRA responds thusly:

“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,”

Is anyone really fooled by Obama’s doubletalk?

As an aside, an interesting observation in the comments at the Sun Times site.

Unintended Consequences?

Hmmm….

See what Obama has done? He has taken a pro-gun control Republican who never liked guns at all and made me a gun owner, gun rights, and gun carrying anti-gun control chick.

And judging from the buiness at the store, I’m not alone.

BAH-HA-HA-HA!!!

Ahem…sorry.  That’s from Right Wing Sparkle.

H/T: Headline thingy at Ace.

Pertinent Questions

Two items for your pondering pleasure which I came across at a forum I frequent.

What really happens in a gunfight?  (be sure to follow the link in the post and read the article).

When the world is out of bullets, what weapon will you use?

Folks, it’s a dangerous world.  Be aware, and be prepared.