Selah!

"Selah"

Psalm 77:1-3 "[...] I cried out to God with my voice--To God with my voice; And He gave ear to me.

"In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord; My hand was stretched out in the night without ceasing; My soul refused to be comforted.

"I remembered God, and was troubled; I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah"

What does 'selah' mean? It shows up over 70 times in the King James version of the Bible. More in a Hebrew Bible, I'm informed. Three times it is found in the book of Habakkuk the prophet (in the third chapter [KJV]), the rest in the Psalms. What's the point of the word? Why is it there?

Psalm 3:1-4 "A Psalm of David when he fled from Absalom his son. LORD, how they have increased who trouble me! Many [are] they who rise up against me.

"Many [are] they who say of me, '[There is] no help for him in God.' Selah

"But You, O LORD, [are] a shield for me, My glory and the One who lifts up my head.

"I cried to the LORD with my voice, And He heard me from His holy hill. Selah"

According to the experts it may have a few meanings, though nobody is certain of its meaning. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah - says,

"Selah (Hebrew: סֶלָה‎, also transliterated as selāh) is a word used frequently in the Hebrew Bible, often in the Psalms, and is a difficult concept to translate. (It should not be confused with the Hebrew word sela' (Hebrew: סֶלַע‎) which means "rock.") It is probably either a liturgico-musical mark or an instruction on the reading of the text, something like "stop and listen". "Selah" can also be used to indicate that there is to be a musical interlude at that point in the Psalm. The Amplified Bible states Selah as "pause, and think of that"."

Is either correct?

Is it a musical direction? Why would we assume that? Granted, many Psalms are addressed to the Chief Musician. But the writers of the Psalms were not musicians themselves. Nor was Habakkuk. So why would, for instance David, give musical directions in his Psalms?

Habakkuk was writing a Prayer in the third book. Okay, perhaps his prayer was meant to be sung. But nowhere does that prayer says so. So why a musical direction? No, in my mind the idea that Selah is a musical direction, or notation, is way off. Nor does it make too much sense to propose that it might mean to add a musical interlude at that point. That, too, makes little sense.

So what's left? That notion of Selah being 'an instruction on the reading of the text, something like "stop and listen," may be closer, if not right on the money. As The Mountain Retreat - http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/selah.html - puts it,

"With all of these "experts" making such contradictory statements, one tends to wonder, "can we even really know what Selah means?" The answer to this question I believe is yes. And the answer really shouldn't be subjective or left to conjecture. Because there is much we can learn about this word from the original Hebrew in which it is written, from allowing the Bible to be its own dictionary, and from comparing scripture with scripture and allowing God to be His own interpreter. All of these things can give us a solid illustration of this word's true meaning.

Selah, [celah], is from the primary Hebrew root word [calah] which literally means 'to hang,' and by implication to measure (weigh). This is readily understood because in Biblical history, money, food and other valuables were 'weighed' by hanging or suspending them on a type of balance (the equivalent of our measuring scale) to determine their value. We find an example of this word [calah] as it is literally translated 'valued,' in the book of Job, indicating that which is measured."

Maybe that's a little too 'literary' or 'scholarly' for us? But the base meaning is clear. It is an instruction within the text. But the instruction depends on the actual text. So we need to use context as our guide.

As Doctor Gene Scott used to say, you can simply translate it as, "Think of that!" or, "Imagine that!" And the context tells you if the word, Selah, is used in a positive or negative way. It can be mocking, too, you know. So the context might translate Selah into something like, "Can you imagine how silly that is?" In some contexts it's easy to translate Selah into, "Imagine how awesome that is!"

But it can always mean the simplest of things, as in that root of the word. So Selah could just mean, "Weigh that idea." Or even, "Look at the value of that thought."

In some places the King James translators used a bit of whimsy, as they translated the very same word. And it became, in Lamentations 1:15, for instance, "The Lord hath trodden under foot all my mighty men in the midst of me: he hath called an assembly against me to crush my young men: the Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a winepress." Here, 'hath trodden under foot' is actually Selah, or the root Hebrew word 'celah'. The second instance of 'trodden' in this verse is, in fact, a different word, entirely, and means trodden.

(Yes, I know the King James translators did a wonderful job. But they did take liberties in places, and translated the exact same words and phrases, in different places, into different meanings. Thus, for example, you have the phrase in Genesis 1:2 'The earth was without form, and void;', yet the exact same Hebrew phrase can also be translated translated into, "And the earth became a waste and a desolation". Which gives an entirely different meaning to the phrase. And also goes a long way to explaining some of the phrases, and thoughts or ideas, found throughout the Old Testament. )

Again, from The Mountain Retreat,

"[...] Whenever we see this word in scripture, we should understand that the Lord is exhorting us to 'weigh' these things thoughtfully, and to reflect and consider in good sense judgment, what is 'really' being said.

And despite claims to the contrary, there is no substantive Biblical evidence that Selah is an interrupter to pause the music while voices continue, nor is there sound evidence that it is for the pausing of voices while the music continues. These ideas are based upon the conjecture and theories of it being a music stop. It is a presupposition rather than a well researched conclusion. But what we do know is that it is a word which means to weigh or measure. And in these contexts, to weigh the preceding words of God and wisely consider them. It is a signature exhortation from God for our thoughtful reflection and weighing of what we have just read."

Selah!

Timing

Timing is an important concept in a lot of our endeavors. In sports timing can be the difference between victory and defeat. In Art, Music, or literature timing can be important, as something may be an utter failure as Art, or Music, or Literature, simply because it is presented to the public before the public is ready for it. It's "ahead of its time," as the saying goes.

When it comes to the plans of God, our understanding of things being timely are woefully inadequate. We expect- demand - God to do things on our timetable. Why doesn't God get that? We're suffering, or in difficulties, and God is taking His sweet time answering our prayers. Though it's danged hard for us to appreciate, God has His own view of Time, and His timing is not ours. His existence is both within Time, and without. God sees the entire span of Time in terms of millennia, at the very least, and His plans are intricately laid out, and working, even as we're demanding He just do something!

Well.

Do you remember the story of Joseph? Sold into bondage by his own brothers, winds up a slave in Egypt, and eventually becomes the most powerful man in Egypt. He is reconciled with his brothers. God could easily have put Joseph into Egypt, and in that position, with speed, and ease. No pain, no fear, no suffering. But He didn't, and the tale is a powerful one for Bible readers today. It is also a nice illustration of God's plan, working His will, on His own Timeline.

Genesis 37:1-30 gives you the buildup to the amazing life of Joseph, and shows how the oldest son of Jacob - Reuben - fitted into God's Plan, and Timeline, for Joseph. And, of course, by extension, all of the Children of Israel. For even Reuben, sinful, destined to lose his Birthright, was used by God to ensure that Joseph would be spared, and that the sons of Jacob would not become murderers.

We learn that Joseph was his father's favorite, spoiled and treated openly as better than all his brothers. Jacob (Israel) thus engendered in his own sons' hearts a hatred of their own brother.

Genesis 37:3 & 4 "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he [was] the son of his old age. Also he made him a tunic of [many] colors.
"But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him."

And if you read the chapter you will not be all that surprised. For Joseph is described in ways that make you wonder why he wasn't smacked around on a regular basis by his brothers. Joseph was very much a proud, boastful youngster. He had all the tact and diplomacy of a kick to the crotch. He seems to be quite proud to relate his dreams to his brothers, and his own father, in which Joseph is exalted over them all.

So picture this family, then, shepherds of sorts, who spread out over a vast territory. So vast, in fact, that it took days for them to go from one feeding area to another. Jacob was not a poor shepherd, but a rich man, for his times, and his favorite son, Joseph, was his most spoiled off-spring. And as this particular story begins, the brothers are off tending the flocks in Shechem, among other places.

Genesis 37:13,14 'And Israel said to Joseph, "Are not your brothers feeding [the flock] in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them." So he said to him, "Here I am." Then he said to him, "Please go and see if it is well with your brothers and well with the flocks, and bring back word to me." So he sent him out of the Valley of Hebron, and he went to Shechem.

Joseph may be a self-centered, self-important jerk, but he is also obedient to his father. And off he went. But by the time he reached Shechem the brothers had moved on, and Joseph had to go even farther, until he found them near Dothan. A rather long trek, and far from his father's home. And of course, he was wearing that many-colored coat, as he traveled. His brothers could see him coming from a good distance.

Genesis 37: 18-20 - 'Now when they saw him afar off, even before he came near them, they conspired against him to kill him. Then they said to one another, "Look, this dreamer is coming! "Come therefore, let us now kill him and cast him into some pit; and we shall say, 'Some wild beast has devoured him.' We shall see what will become of his dreams!"

And that would have been that, right? The brothers had blood in their eyes, so strong was their hatred of the young man. And Joseph was nowhere near home. Who would have known the difference? Certainly not Jacob.

But one brother, the oldest, the one Jewish commentators believe had the softest heart of them all, could not accept murder. Reuben - the man who would lose his birthright for an ugly sin - would stand between his brothers murderous designs, and his obnoxious younger brother, Joseph.

Genesis 37:21-24 'But Reuben heard [it], and he delivered him out of their hands, and said, "Let us not kill him." And Reuben said to them, "Shed no blood, [but] cast him into this pit which [is] in the wilderness, and do not lay a hand on him"--that he might deliver him out of their hands, and bring him back to his father. So it came to pass, when Joseph had come to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph [of] his tunic, the tunic of [many] colors that [was] on him. Then they took him and cast him into a pit. And the pit [was] empty; [there was] no water in it.

And at this point Reuben leaves. There are all sorts of reasons given, such as Reuben circling around to return and pull Joseph out of the pit, to take him home; going off to watch the flocks; having business to attend to, before he can return for Joseph. Whatever reason Reuben had for leaving, just then, he had to leave. God had His own plans for Joseph, and they did not include sending him home. Joseph was to be tempered by trial. And so God found something for Reuben to do to take him away from that pit. Timing.

So Joseph was in the bottom of a pit, Reuben was off - intending to return and save his brother a little later, perhaps after sunset - and the grumbling, murderous brothers remained. And timing rears its head, as God continues to act out His own plans.

Genesis 37:25-28 'And they sat down to eat a meal. Then they lifted their eyes and looked, and there was a company of Ishmaelites, coming from Gilead with their camels, bearing spices, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry [them] down to Egypt.
So Judah said to his brothers, "What profit [is there] if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?
"Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he [is] our brother [and] our flesh." And his brothers listened.
Then Midianite traders passed by; so [the brothers] pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty [shekels] of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.'

And here, if you can't feel for the young man, you have a very hard heart. Oh, he was going be better off, eventually. But at that moment he knew only that his own brothers hated him so much that they would sell him into slavery to be rid of him. And what of Reuben? For Reuben had intended to return and pull Joseph from that pit, and get him home to his father.

Genesis 37:29,30 - Then Reuben returned to the pit, and indeed Joseph [was] not in the pit; and he tore his clothes. And he returned to his brothers and said, "The lad [is] no [more]; and I, where shall I go?"

And Reuben mourned for that spoiled brother of his. He had no idea that God was moving His own plans along, and that Joseph would be fine, by and by. Poor Reuben.

Timing. God's timing is all, and we can accept that, or rail against our fates. God worked the timing so that Jacob's flocks were far from home, indeed farther away than he thought. He sent the one man to them who the brothers hated to the point of murder. So far that the Midianite caravan would not be seen by Jacob, nor Joseph recognized as Jacob's son, by those Midianites. God placed Reuben close enough to overhear his brothers plotting Joseph's murder, and stop them, and then sent him on his way so that he could not keep his brothers from selling Joseph into slavery. Timing.

We have our own concept of the timely, and God has His own. And God's timing wins. No, we don't always understand, but we are the clay to God's Potter. We don't have the standing to complain. If God decides to intercede, in answer to our prayers, He does so because it fits, or does not alter, His plans, His timing.

His plans for Joseph required a lot of things to happen at the right place, and the right time, in the proper sequence. And eventually Joseph would go on to unimagined power, in Egypt. Reuben, and his brothers, and family, would eventually be reconciled with their brother. For God's plans included Egypt, not only for the wealth and bounty of that land, but also as He ingrafted Egyptian blood into the line of the Children of Israel.

And what did Joseph think of all this, so many years later, as he looked at his brothers standing before him? In Genesis 42:22,23 we read that the brothers, not recognizing Joseph, have been thrown into prison. Joseph has not revealed himself to them.

And Reuben answered them, saying, "Did I not speak to you, saying, 'Do not sin against the boy'; and you would not listen? Therefore behold, his blood is now required of us."
But they did not know that Joseph understood [them], for he spoke to them through an interpreter.

Reuben remembered, still, and still mourned, I believe. And Joseph heard every word. Read the rest, and see how they were finally shown who Joseph was, how they feared for their lives since Joseph could have had them all executed. And then read this, as God continues to work His own plans:

Genesis 50:18 - 21 - 'Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, "Behold, we [are] your servants." Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for [am] I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me; [but] God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as [it is] this day, to save many people alive. Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones." And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.'

"You meant evil against me; [but] God meant it for good," Joseph says. God had surely tempered the young man; the older man had become wise.

God's plans; God's timing. All of it He has worked out from the very Beginning, and He will see it accomplished.

God bless you! :D

Genesis: Strange Facts?

Genesis has, as you know, many strange facts. Part of the problem with understanding Genesis is the weakness of some areas of translation. For instance you have Enoch, the father of Methuselah. Enoch was taken to heaven without dying, according to the accepted understanding of the most popular translations, the common understanding of the verse (Genesis 5:24), "And Enoch walked with God; and he [was] not, for God took him." But if the translation was a bit off, to make sense to the translators, this could be in error. One translation I saw made it, not 'for God took him,' but 'for God carried him across [or 'over']'. And this adds to the strangeness. For where was this place? And what was Enoch doing for God in that place?

Josephus, [...] was a 1st Century Jewish scholar and historian who testified that, prior to the Great Flood, the Sethites built two great monuments to preserve their astronomical and spiritual knowledge for future generations. One was built of stone, and the other of brick. According to Josephus, these monuments could still be found in Mizraim (i.e. Egypt) during his lifetime in the 1st Century AD.

Some Ancients called the Great Pyramid the "Pillar of Enoch". So it is not a far stretch to think that Enoch was 'carried over' to build the prophetic monuments for God. It also allows for a job for those "Watchers".

And I believe I've read, in passing, of evidence of salt water found inside the Great Pyramid. Pre-Flood? Why not?

You have Genesis 1:1 where the Hebrew does not say 'God', but 'Gods'. Which presupposes the existence of more than one Spiritual being, including The Word. :D

When you move to Genesis 1:2 you have a translation that is correct, but can also be translated differently, as the same phrase is in Jeremiah. So ... "The earth was without form, and void; [...]" can also be translated as "The earth became a waste and a desolation; [...]" This opens up many avenues of thought, and explains a lot of small things in the Old testament that were baffling. Like Jeremiah's vision of Eden before Adam, and the earth, as well. :D

From Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2 there may well lie an immense gulf of time, within which are the destruction of the earth, and the fall of Satan.

Thanks to Donna Sundblad for reminding me of the topic! :D

From JoshuaNet:

Methuselah comes from Muth, a root that means "death"; and from shalak, which means "to bring." The name Methuselah means, "his death shall bring." [1]

Methuselah's father [Enoch] was given a prophecy of the coming Great Flood, and was apparently told that as long as his son was alive, the judgement of the flood would be withheld. (Can you imagine raising a kid like that? Every time the boy caught a cold, they must have panicked!) The year that Methuselah died, the flood came. It is interesting that Methuselah's life, in effect, was a symbol of God's grace in forestalling the coming judgement of the flood. It is, therefore, fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, speaking of the extensiveness of God's grace.

by Dr. Chuck Missler

Jeremiah 32:20 ~ "You have set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, to this day, and in Israel and among [other] men; and You have made Yourself a name, as it is this day."

... Continuing a Theme ...

When Dogs Fly Helicopters

Checking my email I noticed that the last two emails are from 2023! I am being messaged from the future! Cool! Sadly they are both spam messages, so ... *sigh*

Anyway ...

From yesterday's post:

If you're paying attention to the Pundits, Taking Heads, and so on ... stop! There is NO PERFECT CANDIDATE! Not one of them will align with every one of your beliefs. So stop looking for that candidate. There ain't none. Every single on of the candidates has votes, statements, actions in their past that don't look good, or go against what you, or I consider a positive thing. Remember: "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good." Look for the best out there.

Of the ones I can support, right now, it's Santorum, and Perry. If the GOP nominee ends up being Romney I will support him. I don't think I could support Ron Paul. Ever. Come November, barring a Dr. Paul miracle, it has to be ABO! Anybody But Obama.

And now is the time to rededicate yourself to electing those candidates at the local and state levels who will support, or rein in, the President. That's where Conservatives can make the biggest difference!

Seriously. What Conservative candidate will not get the Chicago treatment? The smears, lies, and distortions will come fast and furious. It's time for you to relax, and know that most of what the MSM tells you about the candidates is just so much Gollum droppings.

Do you really want to elect a champion debater? Or do you want someone whose ideas hew closest to the US Constitution? Every one of the declared candidates has a history that you can find, read about, and think over. Just because some NY Slimes reporter can take a quote, or vote, out of context to make a candidate (or all of them!) look bad, does not mean that reporter is correct. Or even honest. You know they have an agenda, and it isn't a conservative one.

If the Obama campaign thinks it was a funny, winning shot to ask Romney for his tax records, well ... we still haven't seen any of Mr. Obama's school records, have we? Heck, we have never seen Senator Kerry's military records, and that campaign was over 8 years ago! Senator Kerry told us he'd release them ... during the campaign. Still waiting! No word from the NY Slimes on that.

So pay no attention to the media agenda-driven attacks, Folks. Use your head, do your own research, and decide for yourself. This year's election is more important than any we've had in a long, long time. Don't let the Progressive Leftists do the thinking for you!

Got it? Good! :D

By the way, if you want another good reason why this administration really needs to be gone ... try this on for size! Report: Obama Agreed To Release High-Ranking Taliban Leaders From Gitmo In Exchange For Taliban Opening Office In Qatar…

Very New Year: A Fresh Start ...

Okay, so it's the first "real" day of this brand new year - a Monday! - and perhaps time to do some rededicating to the blog, and to a lot of other things, too. I've finally cleaned up the blogrolls, down at the bottom of the page. When blogrolling closed down, I just left things as they were, After all, the links were still there, weren't they? Well ... now they're gone. So I've started rebuilding those links. If you ain't there, but you wanna be, let me know.

And while playing with that, and all the vicious html that goes along with it, I rediscovered Timothy Fish's blog. Yeah, his blog is now under the Writing Pad Blogroll, so there's that. ;) His blog post for today includes this:

"The sad thing is that people are more willing to put their faith in Mayans who are dead than they are in people who are living. They are more willing to put their faith in a piece of ceramic with no evidence to support it than they are in the Bible, which has a preponderance of evidence to show that it is true. Why would you believe a calendar that has no proven claims over a book that has hundreds of proven claims and no disproven claims? That doesn’t make sense to me."

Well, I agree. It doesn't make sense to me, either. But I've listened to UFO Believers who insist that they have seen, or read, all the necessary evidence they need to prove the existence of Aliens.

Of course at the same time they look down their noses at those of us have Faith in the Word. Funny thing, that. The Biblical record can be buttressed with archaeological evidence (and is), among other things, but is dismissed by UFO-logists, and others as "unproven". And naturally the extinct Mayan culture must be correct! Why? Well ... because! Shut up!

This year I will continue to read the Scriptures, and I'll also continue to delve into Apologetics - the Defense of the Faith - which has helped my understanding greatly. Do I have all the answers? No. Of course not! But I do know which questions are serious, and which are the same old 'gotcha-style' nonsense questions. And I know that the ones asking the nonsense questions aren't seriously seeking enlightenment, or answers. So often the only answer available is, "I really don't know." Which go well with the one I have in my head: "And which scientist has all the answers, if you please?"

If you're reading this, and can spare a few dollars, I'll repeat the call for help that I posted below ... twice! My friend is in need of dental care. Right now she's fighting infections that, of course, are causing problems in her body, not just with her mouth. And she has no money. So please begin the year with some charity. Okay? Just head to her blog post, read it, and if you can, donate! Like I said before ... why waste your money on cash-happy political parties? Send a donation to someone who badly needs the help! Thanks! :D

Well, that's it for now. Maybe I'll be able to blog more, through 2012, and maybe I'll lose interest again. Only time will tell!

Happy 2012!

Update! Joni has today blog post up, so go check it out! Goals for the New Year

Palm Sunday Repost

This being Palm Sunday I looked for an appropriate image to grace my Facebook page. And found this one by Harry Anderson:

"Triumphal Entry" which depicts Jesus entering Jerusalem - the basis of our own Palm Sunday remembrance. This begins what many Christians call "Holy Week." In the spirit of the art, let me, then repost something from 2006. About Harry Anderson, and his art. Enjoy!

And have a blessed Palm Sunday! :D

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Harry Anderson - A Different Sort Of Magic

Jim Vadeboncoeur, Jr. said, at BPIB,

"Harry Anderson's story is as unique as his ability. Born in 1906 in Chicago, he was going to be a mathematician. He started college at the University of Illinois in 1925. He took an art course as an easy counterpoint to the math classes and discovered both a talent and a love for drawing. From such simple choices our lives are made."

As Kent Steine says at The American Art Archive,

"Conception, composition, value, draughtsmanship, and painting dexterity," Harry Anderson once said, "must all work together. And they are important in just that order. But the parts all become automatic in time." No picture, according to him, would be deemed acceptable with any of these elements neglected. As one of the top illustrators from the 1930s to the 1980s, Harry spoke with quiet authority on the subject of making pictures.

His work graced the pages of all of the nation's high-profile magazines, as well as the most visible advertising campaigns. Quite often, authors would write to Anderson, informing him that he did a better job telling their story with his picture than they had done.

Just a note: Most of the images here can be enlarged by clicking on them! Worth the time, trust me!

Again, from Jim at BPIB,

He married Ruth around 1940. She worked in the same building as Harry and posed for him on one occasion. The following year he left the agency and joined the studio of Haddon Sundblom - famous for his Coca-Cola Santa Claus paintings. He was too old for military service but he did contribute one poster to the war effort. The purchase of a home during this period led to a second fork in his career path.

He and Ruth joined the Seventh Day Adventist church and in 1944 Harry was asked if he would contribute to their publishing efforts. Harry generously said yes and the next year his most famous image was crafted. "What Happened to Your Hand?" [at left] was done for a children's book in 1945 and immediately touched the hearts of that audience. The adults in charge of the publishing program were less enthusiastic; some even considering it near-blasphemous to show Christ in the present day. Cooler heads prevailed and Anderson spent the rest of his active career splitting his efforts between commercial assignments at his premium wages and religious ones done for love and for scale.

His art director at Review and Herald Publishing was T.K. Martin and it was his vision of Christ as a tangible presence in modern times that was shared and executed over and over again by Anderson. The inner peace that allowed Anderson to make his choice to contribute his time and effort at virtually minimum wage was evident in his paintings and in his depiction of Jesus.

Actually, that's unfair to Harry. That dedication and calm is present in all of his work. As an important and popular illustrator, he's almost unique in the gentleness of his images. Quite capable of depicting nearly anything, his choice of assignments and his approach to them was always in line with the dictates of his heart. Not many people can live their lives the way they want to. It seems that Anderson did. He enjoyed the same quiet, focused strength in his private life that's evident in his art.

From advertisement art

to illustrations for stories of every kind,


Harry Anderson's skill, and story-telling ability, was evident. And still is. For instance, take a look at "A Way With Boys" from 1948. Click on the image for a bigger version. Do you see the little mouse in the little box? Can you imagine the story here? Don't you want to know it? Look at her hand holding the box. Take a good long look. Is that an amazing work of art?



As Harry moved deeper into his religious life and his involvement with the Seventh Day Adventists, his work became more Christ-centered. But it also remained very White. Now, don't get me wrong. Harry was a product of his time, and he painted what he saw, whether in his own life or in his mind's eye. A white Christ is not wrong. But in this day and age it is a tad jarring. And a reminder of a time when the PC Jihadists were not yet in power. Harry could paint what moved his heart and not worry about the Leftist Inquisition.

Harry was free to paint a white Messiah, in a white Israel, without the slightest qualm. Yep! McCarthyism was just rearing its ugly head, but here was an artist painting what he wished. Funny how free we actually were back then, eh?

Indeed, imagine a painting such as "The Consultation", which shows Christ at the bedside of a patient, being hung in a public building today. Yet it hangs in the lobby of a hospital today. Why? Because it came before the Fools of PC arrived to try to shut GOD up. And before even religious institutions were fearful of the reactions of non-believers.



There are so many paintings and illustrations available, and so many I would love to post right here. But, as with my other Artist Posts, they are just too numerous. Let me suggest to you, if you have any interest in the works of Harry Anderson, that you visit the web-site of Jim Pinkoski, whose Harry Anderson page remembers the fine artist and recounts Jim's visit with Harry near the end of Harry's life. It is fascinating and quite revealing. And it's chock full of photos of the visit. Jim was very nice to email me some fine quality images that I could use here.

I also recommend Ken Steacy Publishing, where you can find a few nice pictures, as well as BPIB, my old standby, for biographical info, and the American Art Archives, another of my standbys, for the Kent Steine article on "Loose Realism" - Harry's painting style - and more biographical information.

I love the Internet! So much to discover, so much to learn! So go learn some things about Harry Anderson: he had a different kind of Magic!

Okay, one more. This one emailed to me by Jim Pinkoski, titled "Discovery".


As Jim said,

"This was a neat one that was a poster in the 1970s -- see the face of Jesus in the bushes? It's illustrating that we can look at the beauty of nature and see God's handiwork all around us!"

Date is Unimportant ...

Most of the dating of events, in the New Testament, save for those we now know from archaeology and concurrent events, are open to interpretation. Such, for instance, is the dating of the Birth of Jesus. Though we Christians tend to place the birth at the year Zero - which does not exist, really - the Christ could have been born as early as 4 B.C, according to our calendar. Placing the celebration of His birth in December, though, is incorrect. Christians who complain about non-believers equating the Mass of Christ (Christmas) with the pagan festival of the Saturnalia, are being disingenuous, or ignorant.


The fact is that nearly all Christian celebrations and festivals are ‘pasted’ on to pagan festival dates. The early Christian Church, being empowered in Rome, simply used the Roman tradition of subsuming older religious celebrations for their own. This does not change the nature or focus of the Christian observance. But it does tend to make it difficult for folks to nail down correct dates. Thus, if we depend on the old Roman Catholic Feast days for our dating of events, in the New testament, we can’t reliably date those events we celebrate at all.


For instance we know that, according to New Testament Scripture, John the Baptist - a cousin of Jesus - was born six months before the birth of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church sets aside June 24th as John’s feast day, the celebration of John’s birth. This was done to square his birth, according to Scripture, with that of his cousin’s six months later. Since the Catholic Church set the date of Christ’s birth on December 25th, John’s must have come around June 24th. Simple, right? Also wrong.


Why was December 25th chosen? Well, not because that was the correct date. Instead it was convenient as a way to pull in pagans, who celebrated the Saturnalia for the week before that date. The Romans found, during the days of Empire-building, that it was easier to subdue the conquered populace, not by importing Roman religious traditions into the conquered territory, but to simply adjust their own festivals - in essence to graft the celebrations of the conquered into their own. Saturnalia, too, was drawn from earlier pagan rituals predating the Roman Empire.
The Saturnalia was a week-long celebration of merriment, including gift-giving. Wikipedia describes the Saturnalia thus:

“1. Saturnalia was introduced around 217 BCE to raise citizen morale after a crushing military defeat at the hands of the Carthaginians. Originally celebrated for a day, on December 17, its popularity saw it grow until it became a week-long extravaganza, ending on the 23rd. Efforts to shorten the celebration were unsuccessful. Augustus tried to reduce it to three days, and Caligula to five. These attempts caused uproar and massive revolts among the Roman citizens.


2. Saturnalia involved the conventional sacrifices, a couch (lectisternium) set out in front of the temple of Saturn and the untying of the ropes that bound the statue of Saturn during the rest of the year. A Saturnalicius princeps was elected master of ceremonies for the proceedings. Besides the public rites there were a series of holidays and customs celebrated privately. The celebrations included a school holiday, the making and giving of small presents (saturnalia et sigillaricia) and a special market (sigillaria). Gambling was allowed for all, even slaves.


3. Saturnalia was a time to eat, drink, and be merry. The toga was not worn, but rather the synthesis, i.e. colorful, informal "dinner clothes"; and the pileus (freedman's hat) was worn by everyone. Slaves were exempt from punishment, and treated their masters with (a pretense of) disrespect. The slaves celebrated a banquet: before, with, or served by the masters. Yet the reversal of the social order was mostly superficial; the banquet, for example, would often be prepared by the slaves, and they would prepare their masters' dinner as well. It was license within careful boundaries; it reversed the social order without subverting it.”

Familiar, eh? This pagan feast was simply used by the early Roman Church. Much as the Romans had used other feasts and festivals. But it has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, so far as the actual date is concerned. It was as much a political decision as a religious one.


So when was Christ born (and I don’t mean the year)? Well, if we go back to the New Testament there is evidence that clearly points to a time of year that would fit the dating far better. And it points to the Feast of the Tabernacles.


In John’s Gospel, Chapter 1, verse 14, we read this:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

That word ‘dwelt’ is an English word that feels good to read, but is not what the original said. In the original it would have said ‘tabernacled’, which is to say, He set his tent among his kin-folk. Which has a far deeper meaning to us.


For one thing Christ was coming to live with his relatives. Not simply Mankind, but his own, actual blood-kin. Why is this important? Because according to the Law of Moses only a kinsman could redeem us. From Abide In Christ, we read:

“The "nearest kinsman" or "kinsman redeemer" is a Goel. The word means to redeem, receive or buy back.


Provision was made in the Law of Moses for the poor person who was forced to sell part of his property or himself into slavery. His nearest of kin could step in and "buy back" what his relative was forced to sell (Leviticus 25:48f). The kinsman redeemer was a rich benefactor, or person who frees the debtor by paying the ransom price. "If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his relative has sold" (Leviticus 25:25; cf. Ruth 4:4, 6).


The nearest of kin had the responsibility of redeeming his kinsman's lost opportunities. If a person was forced into slavery, his redeemer purchased his freedom. When debt threatened to overwhelm him, the kinsman stepped in to redeem his homestead and let the family live. If a family member died without an heir the kinsman gave his name by marrying the widow and rearing a son to hand down his name (Deuteronomy 25:5; Genesis 38:8; Ruth 3-4). When death came at the hands of another man the redeemer acted as the avenger of blood and pursued the killer (Numbers 35:12-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-3)”

So Jehovah, abiding by His own Word, could only redeem humanity through a kinsman. Thus we find Mary chosen as the vessel to bring forth that kinsman.


So, our Kinsman Redeemer set His tent (in human flesh, which was required) among us. Christ Tabernacled with us. You can read about the Feast here, where it says, among other things:

“’Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God’ (Lev. 23:29-43)

The Feast of Tabernacles, also called Booths, comes on the fifteenth of Tishri (September-October), the seventh month according to the Jewish (biblical) calendar. This was the third feast that required a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple and offer sacrifices and offering to the Lord.

‘Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty: Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee’ (Deut. 16:16-17).

This is Israel’s Thanksgiving feast in which they acknowledge the Fall harvest and God’s provision for them. It is happy celebration and a time of joy and rejoicing.
[...]”

A better dating for the birth of Christ, I think. This date also fits far better with the Scriptures describing the shepherds, too. No shepherds left their flocks outside in the Judean winter nights. Some Christmas Carols are beautiful in their imagery, but they are standing on Church Tradition rather than Scriptural tradition.


And what does that do to the dating of John the Baptist’s birth? His birth, if we follow the idea of God doing His thing according to His Word, may well have been on, or near, the Feast of First Fruits. This feast marked the end of Passover, but the beginning of the Harvest. And John the Baptist was certainly what you could call the first of the Harvesters for Christ.


The problem of nailing down the correct dates of these occurrences, after centuries of tradition, is not so very important. After all we are not celebrating the god Saturn, any more than we celebrate the goddess Ishtar at Easter. No, at traditional Christmas-time we celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, Messiah, Savior. Where we choose to place that celebration, on our calendar, means little, as long as our focus is on that most wondrous gift ever given: the Son of God, to us, to redeem us from sin.


So don’t be chastened when unbelievers get mouthy about Christmas being celebrated on the Saturnalia. It’s true! Our Christmas celebration is based on the date of that pagan Roman celebration. And it doesn’t matter. Focus on God, Christ, and the reason for that celebration, and you’re on the right road.


Enjoy the Christmas season. There’s no reason not to. But remember why we celebrate in the first place! :D

Busy times ...

Writing, reading, working - though the actual work hours scarcely break 25 hours per week (yeesh!) - trying to keep up-to-date with the latest machinations of the Leftists in Media and the Dem Party.

Professional Leftist agitator is knocked down, the truncated video becomes a Leftist talking-point. Attendee at same rally is attacked by Leftist, no sound from the Leftist Peanut Gallery. Surprised? No, nor me, either.

Insiders say the NRCC has given up on Joe Miller in Alaska. Conservatives wonder just when were they actually working for, or with, Joe Miller in Alaska? Suggestion to conservatives around the fruited plains: Send not one penny to the GOP. Nothing to the big campaign committees, those who keep pushing middle-of-the-road, or Dem-Lite, candidates for Republican Nominees. Send your contributions directly to the candidates you support. The GOP is abandoning the principles they ostensibly represent. I'm speaking of the Elitists in the Beltway. Karl Rove? Asshat!

You know those charming folks, right? The ones who thought Charlie Crist was a fine choice? The ones who assured you that Christine O'Donnell could not beat Mike Castle (the fellow who voted with the Dems nearly all the time?), the same Republican elites who continue to disparage the primary winners? They've abandoned Republicanism for some odd idea of holding onto power, while watching the Leftist government continue to drag us down the crap-hole of Socialism and Dhimmitude. Give them nothing.

Meanwhile I'm still Mentoring the F2K writing course, and now Nanowrimo has begun, too! The writing stuff makes for a very busy day/week/month! And that's just fine by me!

Can't promise I'll be updating much, but I figured it was time to do something, right? I hope the world is treating you well. :D

Whoo-Hoo!

Nor should we ...

Bosch Fawstin



Calling Islam “Islam.”

"NEW YORK – Nine years on from the largest mass murder on American soil, New York’s cityscape remains painfully incomplete. For all the grand plans and lavishly designed (and redesigned) memorials, for all the talk about the urgency of paying tribute to the nearly 3,000 victims of Islamic terrorism, Ground Zero is a graveyard of promises unmet and due honor delayed."

~ Tragedy at Ground Zero

"Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The “Muslim world” will “explode” if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the “Muslim world” not ready to “explode”?

At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways"

~ The Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage

Remembering 9/11: Remember: 9/11 Coverage As it Happened

Leftist Luddites On The March

And so the expected squealing, screaming demands for a ban on oil drilling arises. It didn't take too long, though longer than I had anticipated. For this is the way of the world in Left Land. Anything that would buttress the American economy, and thus the American people, must be destroyed. No matter to Leftists what will become of 'the people' as long as the agenda and aims of the Left is kept goose-stepping forward to the rear. No crisis can be wasted!


An oil spill is an ugly thing, killing wildlife, destroying areas of coastland where the oil washes up, poisoning the water in which it floats. No question this is an occurrence that should be avoided. Which is why the Oil Industry does, in fact, do its best to so avoid such spills and accidents. The cost in money alone is sufficient reason for the Oil Industry to work hard to prevent spills.


But nothing is guaranteed, you know. Nothing we do is free of risk. Accidents do happen, all the time, and though we can prevent most with planning and technology, there is no way all accidents - in any endeavor - can be prevented. Only children and Leftists believe such a prevention fantasy. If the Left has its way all of humanity, not just those primitive cultures you love to read about in the National Geographic, will be living in caves, subsisting on nuts, berries, and roots. And a Terminator shall lead them.


As Jeffrey Lord notes, in his American Spectator article, California's Governator wants to stop the risks!

"But then again, you know, you see that, you turn on television and see this enormous disaster and you say to yourself, why would we want to take that risk?"

-- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, on his decision to refuse oil drilling off the coast of California

Arnold as Ned Lud.

Who would have imagined this casting? The Austrian-immigrant turned body builder, entrepreneur, movie star and governor of the nation's largest state. The man who once seemed to have such a perfect grasp of the can-do spirit behind the idea that is America -- starring in a 21st century portrayal as Ned Lud.

As Lord also notes, regarding the Luddites:

And right about 1812 there began to sprout up in Britain what American novelist Thomas Pynchon described as "bands of men, organized, masked, anonymous, whose object was to destroy machinery used mostly in the textile industry. They swore allegiance not to any British king but to their own King Ludd" adding for some incomprehensible reason a second "d" to Ned's last name. Pynchon adds: "It isn't clear whether they called themselves Luddites, although they were so termed by both friends and enemies." As observers have pointed out ever since, the Luddites had what the late British scientist and novelist C.P. Snow termed an irrational fear and hatred of science and technology. They were the "counter-revolutionaries" of the Industrial Revolution, who angrily detested modern inventions they had "never tried, wanted or been able to understand."

Lord goes on to say:

But the real question here is whether or not Americans will succumb to the Luddite world view. Or clean up the mess, understand that risk is a part of everyday life, and that in fact nothing in this world is either risk free or fail safe.

And what happens to us when the Leftists manage to ban oil drilling, much less oil distillation, production, and use? Are you all ready to do without, not simply gasoline for your cars, heating oil for your homes, but lubricating oil for machinery? What about all the modern products that come from oil? Will you happily do without them?

Oh, don't you worry. The Ruling Leftist Elite will not be doing without. They will still have the use of fuels for their lifestyles - after all, they are our betters, and deserve so much more than we, don't they? - but they'll also be the only ones who have the products made from petroleum products. And why not? They'll be the only ones remaining with enough money to afford these soon-to-be luxuries (after they destroy the economy utterly, leaving the rest of us on the dole).

Don't use oil-based products? No? Don't think so, do you? Well, here's a partial list of what those Evil, Mean-Spirited, Gaia-hating, Oil Industry Fascists create from that horrid, un-natural petroleum:

ammonia, anesthetics, antifreeze, antihistamines, antiseptics, artificial limbs, artificial turf, aspirin, awnings, balloons, ballpoint pens, bandages, basketballs, bearing grease, bicycle tires, boats, cameras, candles, car battery cases, car enamel, cassettes, caulking, cd player, cd's, clothes, clothesline, cold cream, combs, cortisone, crayons, curtains, dashboards, denture adhesive, dentures, deodorant, detergents, dice, diesel, dishes, dishwasher, dresses, drinking cups, dyes, electric blankets, electrician's , ape, enamel, epoxy, eyeglasses, fan belts, faucet washers, fertilizers, fishing boots, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, folding doors, food preservatives, football cleats, football helmets, footballs, footballs, gasoline, glycerin, golf bags, golf balls, guitar , strings, hair coloring, hair curlers, hand lotion, heart valves, house paint, ice chests, ice cube trays, ink, insect repellant, insecticides, life jackets, linings, linoleum, lipstick, luggage, model cars, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmet, movie film, nail polish, nylon , ope, oil filters, paint, paint brushes, paint rollers, panty hose, parachutes, percolators, perfumes, petroleum jelly, pillows, plastic wood, purses, putty, refrigerant, refrigerators, roller skates, roofing, rubber cement, rubbing alcohol, safety glasses, shag rugs, shampoo, shaving cream, shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, skis, slacks, soap, soft , contact lenses, solvents, speakers, sports car bodies, sun glasses, surf boards, sweaters, synthetic rubber, telephones, tennis rackets, tents, tires, toilet seats, tool boxes, tool racks, toothbrushes, toothpaste, transparent tape, trash bags, tv cabinets, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporizers, vitamin capsules, water pipes, wheels, yarn

But don't let that stop you, if you want to avoid the risk of another oil spill, anywhere in the world, anytime. By all means, let's not use oil, that natural substance, so useful and important to our culture and our economy. No, we can't take the risk! Risk-taking is foolish! Nobody in their right mind takes risks!

The Left continues its ceaseless assault on humanity in general, and Americans in particular. They want oil drilling, exploration, and refining banned. All in the name of risk-avoidance, economic justice, and the Religion of Gaia.

As Van Helsing puts it, after the latest insane mumblings of Left Coast politicians:

Here's an idea: next time there's a tragic car accident, let's ban automobiles. Then we won't need so much oil anyway.

Heaven knows my economic well-being is just fantastic, these days. I can handle ruin as well as anybody. *sheesh!*

Note: Maybe you wondered what happened to all the oil spilled during the Second World War? I know I have. From all the evidence available Nature handled it. And it wasn't just a few drops, either. From The Environment website comes this question and partial answer:

Where did the first major oil spill occur?

The first major oil spill occurred during World War II (1939-45), between January and June of 1942. German U-boat attacks on tankers off the East Coast of the United States spilled 590,000 tons of oil.

The first major commercial oil spill occurred on March 18, 1967, when the tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground on the Seven Stones Shoal off the coast of Cornwall, England. The tanker spilled 830,000 barrels (119,000 tons) of Kuwaiti oil into the sea.

On January 25, 1991, during the Gulf War, almost 1.5 million tons of oil was deliberately dumped from Sea Island into the Persian Gulf. Another major spill occurred in Russia in October 1994, in the Komi region of the Arctic. The size of that spill was reported to be as much as 2 million barrels (286,000 tons).

Spills such as the aforementioned were far larger than the much-publicized Exxon [...]

In case you had forgotten, Saddam Hussein, the asshat who purposely spilled all that oil, during the Gulf War, was a member of the Socialist (that's Leftists, folks) Baath Party. I'm just sayin'.

Phillies' Robin Roberts Completes the Game

Robin Roberts, the Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher of 'Whiz Kids' fame, has passed away (May 6, 2010). This gentleman, who spent so much of his 'retirement' years teaching baseball to the young, will be missed, as another link to a more innocent sporting past goes to his reward.

I was too young to ever have watched Roberts pitch for the Philadelphia Phillies. The earliest Phillies' baseball era I can remember was in the 60s, when names like Johnny Callison, Jim Bunning, and Chris Short were the Phillies my mind conjures up. Not until the 1970s, with Greg "The Bull" Luzinski, Mike Schmidt, Larry Bowa, and Willie Montenez, did I pay much attention to baseball. But the name of Robin Roberts was, even then, famous and revered in Phillies lore.

He was the consummate team-player. A gifted pitcher whose career was anchored with a team which never made the post-season after Roberts' second season in the Major Leagues. Phillies fans remained fond of Roberts despite his team's season-after-season losing records. In a small way I can relate to this feeling.

In the 70s the Phillies had Steve Carlton pitching, a reclusive man whose talents were phenomenal on the mound. I can recall one season when Carlton's victories comprised something like 49% of the Phillies wins, that year. The players seemed to believe that if Carlton was on the mound they would win. I think Roberts provided a similar feeling to the Phillies teams he was a part of.

The difference between the men was obvious, though. Roberts was unassuming, friendly, generous. Carlton led a monastic-like life, shunning the spotlight, and often, the fans, in his bid for pitching perfection.

One could scarcely imagine Carlton joshing with a team-mate in an easy manner. But Roberts did. And here's how Larry Thornberry, in his article on the passing of Robin Roberts, A Very Complete Game, describes how Roberts' pastor, Wally Meyer, pastor at Christ Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, remembered his story-telling:

Meyer also liked Roberts' baseball stories, including the one about the rookie Lou Piniella who was sent up to pinch-hit for Roberts (who wasn't a bad hitter for a pitcher). Piniella grounded out to shortstop. Later in the clubhouse the by then venerable Roberts joshed the rookie, saying, "I could have done that."

Athletes' careers end, their lives go on, and so many of them become caricatures, while most simply move on to other things, and are nearly forgotten. But some, like Robin Roberts, move on to better things, improving their own lives as well as the lives of others. As Thornberry notes:

Those who knew him will tell you that, taken all around, Robin Roberts was a Hall of Famer as a man as well as a pitcher. His long and productive life was more than a quality start. It was a very complete game. He will be missed.

Yep!

Robin Roberts: a genuine article and humble legend

Robin Roberts at Wikipedia

Note: Robin Roberts' number - 36 - was the first Phillies' number to ever be retired by the Philadelphia Phillies.

Books - Reading Reviews

I love to read! More than watching television or movies, I like to sprawl out and read a book. Hardback, paperback, it doesn’t matter. I even have the programs on my computer so I can read ebooks - though this is not as enjoyable (reading a book at the computer can be tiring, I gotta say) - and if you have an old ebook reader you don’t use, why, just send it to me!

I don’t often read reviews of books. Most seem to be written by professional critics and tend to be overly critical and demanding. But every-so-often I’ll find a review that does a good job, giving enough information to make me want to buy and read the book reviewed.

Steven Brandt has a blogging site called “Reviews From the Deep”. On it he reviews the books he has listened to and lets you know what he thinks. I say ‘listens to’ because Steven has been going blind for some time now. So he buys audiobooks - mostly on CDs, and gives a review of the tale, as well as the production - namely the narrator.

The reviews are from the viewpoint of a reader, not a critic. So even if you disagree with his opinions you'll enjoy reading them, anyway. :)

When I could afford it, and had a long commute, I was a member of audible.com. Rather than novels I would purchase biographies and histories to listen to - on an mp3 player - on my way to work. At that time I was spending a good 45 minutes to an hour to get to work. Instead of fiddling with the radio, to try and find music that wouldn’t annoy me, I could listen to a history. And I enjoyed it.

Now audible had abridged and unabridged recordings of the books. Abridged books, of course, are edited down a bit, sort of like a Reader’s Digest version. I never bought these, preferring the full version. So now, when I read one of Steven’s reviews I don’t know if he’s using an abridged or unabridged version of the book he’s reviewing. I suppose I should ask.

Anyway, if you like to read, and want to see a review of some of the books he’s read, I recommend heading over to Reviews From the Deep and checking out what he’s got there.

And leave a comment, too, why don’tcha? He’d appreciate that.

:)

Socialists/Leftists Are insane! That's a fact!

I've been missing - on the blogging scene - for a while. No excuses, just haven't felt like opining. Each day I roam the 'Net checking out my favorite blogs and sites, keeping up on the nefarious activities of the Left, and the heartening activities of the Good Guys. There's plenty of reason to worry about where our nation is heading, indeed our world. But there's also plenty of reason to be hopeful for our future as many are wakening to the dangers of creeping Statism and Surrender.

It's not as if there hasn't been evidence galore revealing the dead-end of the Socialist way. The charitable impulses of many, who support socialism as a way of making sure that all are equal, result in those under Socialism being relegated to a kind of poverty: poverty of living conditions, poverty of future, poverty of spirit. None of this is new.

The history of the 20th Century is filled to overflowing with the evidence of Socialism's inhuman aims. But still Socialism - in may guises - is touted as the way to a kind of Utopia, by Ivory Tower academics, entrenched potitical Elites, and mush-headed youths who have yet to step out into the real world. If you needed any more evidence that Socialism is a dead-end, or that its promises are lies, you don't need to look at the insanity of Venezuela and its chubby thug Dictator Hugo Chavez, nor at the Castro brothers' hell-on-earth in Cuba. You don't need to try to explain Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. No, simply look at what has befallen Greece.

Bojidar Marinov, writing for The American Vision, begins his article by stating,

"If socialism worked, Greece would have been the richest country in Europe. No other member state of the European Union has such an extensive system of government welfare, pension plans, government aid for needy families, healthcare, government-guaranteed student loans, government labor exchanges, trade unions legislation, etc."

He goes on to comment,

"It all ends when you run out of someone else's money. And when your soul is dead, you become a slave. And now the Greek government is a slave to its creditors, and the Greek people are becoming slaves of their government. Protests or not, from now on the Greeks will have to live in shackles. High taxes. Pay freezes. No more cash transactions over 1,500 Euro—the government needs to control every transaction. Zero protection for privacy or bank accounts. No more protectionism, no more generosity. Step by step a nation with a bad soul is turning into a slave nation. As was to be expected, if the Greeks had read their Bibles."

Read Bojidar Marinov's "Killing the Soul of a Nation", and contemplate what is coming to America if we continue to sway to the Siren song of Socialism.

One of the sites I go through each day is American Thinker. Good articles, enjoyable, thought-provoking blog posts. And one of those writers is known as Robin of Berkeley. I was so interested in what she was saying that I clicked on her name and found her archive. I started at the first post and kept going. Now I check each day for a new post. Robin is a psychologist, working on the Left coast, who, until recently, was a Lefty. But she's now recovering from that little bit of insanity.

As she remarks at the start of that first post,

"Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.

These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics."

Eye-opening, isn't it? That's the voice of a rational woman who has seen the light and renounced her Leftism. And recently she posted "The Weird Failure of the Left" in which she says,

"I'm starting to dread seeing the postal worker. That's when my leftist mate's magazines start showing up. Some days, it feels like Saul Alinsky himself has risen from the dead and invaded my mailbox.

Last month, Jon's Harper's Magazine wailed about the White Supremacy movement. But his March/April Mother Jones takes the paranoid cake.

The cover features the most despised life form on the planet: the white male. He's wearing a hoody and looking menacingly into the camera. The headline thunders: "Age of Treason. This Soldier Is Ready To Take Up Arms Against the Obama Administration. He's Not Alone."

The hit piece is all about the enemy within. But the author's not talking about those domestic terrorists who planned to bomb Jewish centers in New York. Not the infiltration of our military (our military!) by jihadist Muslims. Certainly not the far-left Obama-holic who killed her brother and blew the brains out of her University of Alabama colleagues.

It's something much more hair-raising: the God-fearing, conservative-voting, white male."

Every one of her articles has been a good read, and this one maintains the quality. May I suggest you read both of these articles and then check out the archives of Robin of Berkeley? Worth your time, and good to know that there are a lot of smart, level-headed people still out there.

Remember, if you continue to do something that doesn't work, and believe that eventually it will work, that's sort of an indication of insanity. Socialism does not work, has not worked, and will never work. Changing the faces running a Socialist system will make no difference. Socialism ignores human nature, thus it cannot work because it is based on the idea that humans will always work for the 'greater good'. They will not. Ordering them to do so will not work. History proves that Socialism is not a successful working system of government, no matter how 'smart' the leaders,

Believing that this time Socialism can work is simply insane.

Did We Learn Anything?

Did we learn anything from the Scott Brown election?


Now that nearly everyone with any interest has spoken about the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election, I thought I might put in my own two cents.


Like many conservatives I'm invigorated by the upset win by a Republican in Democrat bastion like Mass. One of only two Republicans in the Mass State Senate, Brown came from nowhere, with little real name-recognition in his state, to defeat the supposed shoe-in candidate of the Democrats, Martha Coakley. Coakley's name recognition was very high, owing to her government positions and her utterly cynical stance on the imprisonment of an innocent man (Gerald Amirault).


Despite her party credentials, and a huge lead in the polls after winning the Dem primary, Coakley was over-taken by the little-known Brown. She waged an unprincipled campaign, full of lies, innuendos, and foolish gaffes. Expected to simply be coronated by the Democrat machine in Mass, as the latest "Heir to the Kennedy Seat", Coakley found herself in a fight for which she was utterly unprepared. Even the last minute appearance of "The One" couldn't help.


Also not helpful were the suggestions of state officials that the seating of Brown, should he win, would simply take a lot of time, during which the Democrat Party expected to pass the Senate's version Obamacare. The people didn't care for that piece of underhandedness. In fact they found all too much of the Democrat Machine not to their liking. The agenda, the machinations, the slime for which they have become masters, the stupid comments of the candidate, all of it served to move many voters out of the "I voted for Obama; for Hope and Change!" column, to the "I want real, darned change!" column of Scott Brown.


The pundits will point to all sorts of reasons for the upset victory of the Republican in a dark blue state. All will have a bit of truth behind them, from anger over the arrogance of the Democrats, the disgust with the so-called reform of Health Care (nothing of the kind, actually, but simply a takeover by the inept Left of a vital part of our society), the dislike so many had for Coakley. None of the reasons completely fit the bill. And why worry about it?


What matters is that despite the effort of the Left to Palinize Brown, nothing stuck. Oh, given enough time the MSM could have, and would have, found enough information to distort Brown's record, as well as his message. They took shots at his truck, for crying out loud! Foolish, venal, childish, unworthy of a great nation's journalists and political parties.


The Republican Party stayed away from Brown. At first simply because they did not realize what a good candidate he was/is, or that the Democrats were actually vulnerable. They still believe they can win on Democrat Lite rather than core Republicanism. Then, when it became glaringly obvious that Brown had a good shot at winning, they wisely funneled some money into his campaign - a fifth the amount Coakley received from the Democratic Party. The only kudos to the GOP are for that last maneuver. Will they learn to support core Republicans, no matter what? I doubt it. They haven't in a very long time, if ever.


How bad was this for the Left? CNN refused to air the entire Brown victory speech. MSNBC, as you prolly know by now, also cut the speech while the clueless, and foul Keith Olbermann ranted and insulted Brown. A classy fun, smart speech was not interesting to the MSM, not because it was a bad speech, but because it was a Republican giving it. They even loathed his remarks regarding his daughters. How silly can you get?


Some of his remarks, from the prepared text:

[...]Let me tell you when I first got the feeling something big was happening in this campaign. It was when I was driving along and spotted a handmade, Scott Brown yard sign that I hadn't actually put there myself.

This little campaign of ours was destined for greater things than any of us knew, and the message went far beyond the name on the sign.

It all started with me, my truck, and a few dedicated volunteers. It ended with Air Force One making an emergency run to Logan. I didn't mind when President Obama came here and criticized me - that happens in campaigns. But when he criticized my truck, that's where I draw the line.

We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere - and now they know it.

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn't worry about their party affiliation, and they didn't worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.
[...]

Some of his non-family thanks:

I'm grateful to all those from across Massachusetts who came through for me even when I was a long shot. I especially thank a friend who was there with encouragement from the very beginning, and helped show us the way to victory - former Governor Mitt Romney.

I'll never forget the help of another man who took the time to meet with me months ago - who told me I could win, and gave me confidence for the fight. It was all so characteristic of a truly great and heroic American, and tonight I thank my new colleague, Senator John McCain.

On a night like this, when so many people mark your name on a statewide ballot, you think back to the first people who gave you a chance and believed. For the trust they placed in me, and for all they have taught me, I thank my neighbors and friends in my Senate district and especially my hometown of Wrentham. The cause and victory that all America has seen tonight started right there with all of you.

The full text of that speech are here, at The Huffington Post. Read, enjoy, savor the fun of a humble win. You can find the video of Olbermann's melt-down all over the Net. Yeesh!


Was the speech too long? Perhaps. But Brown had a lot of people to thank, and he had a few points to make, too. And as others have noted, his supporters and campaign workers wanted this time. Wanted the candidate's time, and to revel in a hard-fought campaign that brought them all victory.


So what happens now? Massachusetts voters need to keep an eye on their new Senator, make sure he stands firm in his stated convictions. And Senator-elect Brown needs to be what he promised, and not become another go-along-to-get-along politico. But there's more.


The GOP, if it has any principles left, must see this election for what it was - the repudiation of politics over the common good. The win of more than a man, but of ideals which are central to the American experience. The GOP must go back to the First Principles of the Party and to the Constitution, stop playing Uriah Heep to the Democrats, and stand for something. Not for gaining and holding power. Not for Leftism Lite, but for American Exceptionalism as exemplified by the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution.


Better to lose elections while standing up for America than to lose them, or even win them, while bowing to the retrograde philosophies of the Left. Americans want better Health care, not Obamacare and the control of it by the Leftist bureaucrats. They want better cars, not the control of American automakers by the Left. They want clean air and water, not economically destructive 'Green' policies that will destroy jobs but enrich wealthy Leftists like Al Gore. Americans want a strong, tough military, and the end to legal coddling of blood-thirsty, fanatical terrorists.


They want honest representatives. They want representatives who understand that they are employees of the electorate, not the employer. Arrogance and insolence in an employee should merit dismissal, not a life tenure.


The GOP can learn this, if it wants to. Americans can lead the way for their wayward representatives.


Did we learn anything from the Scott Brown election?

I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people. I've got a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve.

I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, I drive a truck, and I am nobody's senator but yours.

Thank you very much.

Seeds Of Revolution?

" ... a people Jealous of their Liberties and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated."
~ Isaac Barré, MP, 6 February, 1765

In 1675/76 two major incidents occurred in North America, both stemming from what the citizenry considered their government's arrogance and lack of concern for what was happening to them. In both incidents the government, safe in their fine homes, far from the trouble, ignored complaints, calls for assistance, and the growing anger of the people. The result, in both cases, was immense embarrassment and disgrace for the government, military intervention when it was too late for negotiation, and the seeds of rebellion sown. Seeds that would take a century to germinate into full-scale war.


In New England, Plymouth Colony, the government exerted pressure to thoroughly control the Indians. This included commanding the appearance of the Wampanoag chief, Wamsutta, to appear in Plymouth. He was met by Major Winslow and an armed force, taken at gun point, and questioned. He died shortly after. Wamsutta's brother, Metacom - known to the colonists as Phillip - became chief.


Despite long-standing uneasy relations between the Indians and the colonists, such heavy-handed actions on the part of the colonial government showed an appalling lack of understanding. And the colonists would pay a bloody price. The result was 'King Phillip's War' which ended in 1676.


Family History.com summarizes thus:

In 1675, hostilities broke out in the town of Swansea, and the war spread as far north as New Hampshire, and as far southwest as Connecticut. Not all Native People, however, sided with Philip. Most Natives who had converted to Christianity fought with the English or remained neutral. The English, however, did not always trust these converts and interned many of them in camps on outlying islands. Also, some Native communities on Cape Cod and the Islands did not participate in the war. Native soldiers fighting on the side of the colonists helped turn the tide of the war, which ended in 1676 when Philip was killed by a Wampanoag fighting with Captain Benjamin Church.

Fighting continued until 1678, when a treaty of Peace was signed at Casco Bay. For the colonists, the farmers and townspeople who suffered at the hands of the Indians due to the government's ignorance and arrogance, more was to come via the British government. Seeds were being sown.

In the Virginia colony, in the year 1676, trouble was also brewing. With high taxes, tobacco prices dropping, and special privileges given to the friends of the Royal governor, the people of the outlying areas were ready to revolt. Adding to their misery were the incessant attacks by the Indians. The Governor, and his Elite friends of the Virginia Tidewater, refused to respond to those attacks in any meaningful way. The citizenry took things into their own hands, sending two punitive expeditions against the Indians. These successful expeditions were headed by Nathaniel Bacon, a planter of the region. Soon elected to the House of Burgesses, Bacon was attempting to take his seat when the Governor arrested him.

Bacon was soon released, but the final bit of damage had been done. As Info Please summarizes:

Bacon gathered his supporters, marched on Jamestown, and coerced Berkeley into granting him a commission to continue his campaigns against Native Americans. A circumspect assembly then passed several reform measures. The governor, having failed to raise a force against Bacon, fled to the Eastern Shore. He gathered enough strength to return to Jamestown, where he proclaimed Bacon and his men rebels and traitors. After a sharp skirmish Bacon recaptured the capital (Berkeley again took flight) but, fearing that he could not hold it against attack, set fire to the town. Bacon now controlled the colony, but he died suddenly (Oct., 1676), and without his leadership the rebellion collapsed. After a few months Berkeley returned to wreak a bloody vengeance before he was forced to return to England. Berkeley's removal and the end of attacks by Native Americans were the only benefits the yeomen had won in the rebellion, and the tidewater aristocracy long maintained its power.

The Royal government took over control of the colony, but never addressed the problems of the colonists. They knew better than any common people what was best. More seeds had been sown.

Move ahead to the 1760s. The French and Indian War has been fought, the French defeated, Canada taken as the latest British Crown Colony. In London, the new, expanded Empire has depleted so much of the Treasury that Prime Minister Grenville must do something to refill the coffers. Where to find some of that money? The American colonies, for one.

The experts on the American colonies consisted of men who gained their knowledge before the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War it's called in Britain), and knew nothig of the sacrifices, in blood and treasure, expended by the Americans in defense of their homes and the Empire. In short, the Elite experts knew little about Americans, and could not care less. They knew what was best. And so began the institution of several Acts of Parliament which would tinder a fire of resentment in the hearts of Americans, and smoulder for a decade.

At the end of the War America fell into an economic depression deepened by a drought that made farmers weep. Most of the colonies had gone into debt to supply the men and supplies demanded by the King's armies to fight the French. Now, as they tried to find ways to struggle out of that debt, the Royal government moved in, in its typical heavy-handed, muzzie-headed way, and changed the way finances were to be handled. This threw American merchants into a kind of panic. Many went bankrupt, many went deeply into debt which would take years, or decades, to clear.

But things seemed quiet in America, to the Grenville government, and the King. After all, there were no protests to Parliament, aside from a few respectful, mealy-mouthed requests from colonial legislatures, for a second look at things by Parliament. In America the legislatures, involved in internecine war with opposition parties, were really too busy holding, or gaining, or consolidating their own power, to worry about the lesser mortals of the citizenry. And so George Grenville passed the infamous Stamp Act as a way to increase revenues from the colonies in a way that spread the cost to all. Grenville thought it was eminently fair. He knew nothing of Americans save what the Army Commanders-in-Chief had described during the early phases of the War. Americans were insolent, rebellious, and interested in only making money. The British saw nothing of the growth in patriotism of Americans as they joined in the fight agaisnt the French. They had no conception of the way Americans had moved slowly away from the kind of stratified society of nobility known in European lands. In short, the British government had learned little from the French and Indian War, when it came to their American colonies.

The Stamp Act passed in 1765. The seeds had sprouted.

While colonial legislatures remained mired in their own power politics, one of the opposition parties in New England used the Stamp Act as a way to gain power. Unleashing two mobs in Boston they forced the Stamp Collector to resign. This success led to similar, and far more violent and bloody, mob action in the other colonies. Many of these groups took the name, "Sons of Liberty" after the term used by Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Barré. Barré rose in Parliament to speak against the Act. Speaking without notes, in response to Charles Townshend's observation when introducing the Stamp Act resolutions that the colonies should "contribute to the mother country which had planted, nurtured and indulged them," Barré replied,

"They planted by your care! No, your oppressions planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated, inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the cruelties of a savage foe and actuated by principles of true English liberties, they met all hardships with pleasure compared with those they suffered in their own country from the hands of those who should be their friends.

"They nourished up by your indulgence? they grew by your neglect of them: ---as soon as you began to care about them, that Care was Exercised in sending persons to rule over them, in one Department and another, who were perhaps the Deputies of Deputies to some Member of this house---sent to Spy out their Liberty, to misrepresent their Actions & to prey upon them; men whose behaviour on many Occasions has caused the Blood of those Sons of Liberty to recoil within them; men promoted to the highest Seats of Justice, some, who to my knowledge were glad by going to a foreign Country to Escape being brought to the Bar of a Court of Justice in their own.

"They protected by your Arms? They have nobly taken up Arms in your defence, have Exerted a Valour amidst their constant & Laborious industry for the defence of a Country, whose frontier, while drench'd in blood, its interior Parts have yielded all its little Savings to your Emolument. And believe me, remember I this Day told you so, that same Spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first, will accompany them still.---But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I do not at this Time speak from motives of party Heat, what I deliver are the genuine Sentiments of my heart; however superiour to me in general knowledge and Experience the reputable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having seen and been conversant in that Country. The People I believe are as truly Loyal as any Subjects the King has, but a people Jealous of their Liberties and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated---but the Subject is too delicate & I will say no more."

Barré knew and respected Americans. He had lost an eye in the War, fighting alongside American militia. His speech made no difference to Parliament or the British government. But his words struck a spark in the colonies.

Britain didn't try to enforce the Stamp Act. Had they, no doubt the Revolution would have begun ten years earlier than it did. By the time the colonial legislatures had a grasp of the will of the people, those they considered unimportant, it was to late to head them off.

The politicians on both sides of the Atlantic had paid no attention to those they ostensibly represented. By 1775 it was no longer possible for the politicians to fix the problems they themselves had fostered. And the people would take the lead and rise in a full-fledged Revolution.

Governments who pay heed to only their supporters and friends inevitably become tyrannical, not to mention myopic. Political parties who interest themselves in gaining power, and expect support for not being the other Party, are out of touch with those they represent, those who pay their salaries, those who expect honest governance.

Just as in 1675/76, and in the 1760s, the citizenry are not being represented but misrepresented by those whose salaries they pay. Democrats represent the Special Interests who contribute to their campaign coffers; Republicans strive to be 'Not Democrats'. Neither Party pays heed to the citizenry of the United States. Instead they are content that each knows best what the people 'need', and continue their power politics games, while the citizens of this nation grow angry, fearful, and discontented.

Have seeds been sown?