Not believing in Jesus Christ does not make you a "Whore," or an other offensive description for that matter

I'm re-reading one of the best sci-fi trilogies ever, The Circle, by Ted Dekker. It also happens to be one of the most blatant Christian allegories I've ever read, so closely aligned with the Christian faith that one has to wonder whether Mr. Dekker is C.S. Lewis incarnate. I will not spoil the actual story for you, but there is one aspect to it that at least one of my friends and many of the readers of this blog should take to heart (including me).

At one point in the series, the Christ figure dies a gruesome death. He is then resurrected and the net result is that his death permanently cures those who believe in him from a horrific skin disease, absent the need to continuously wash away its effects, which was the case before his death (the disease represents sin). But what's really interesting is that the Peter figure (Thomas) does exactly what Peter did in the New Testament. He doesn't say terrible things about his enemies and the enemies of his Christ. Instead, he does everything in his power to bring them the gift of Elyon too, permanent salvation from the disease. Those in "The Circle" who just don't get it use incredibly offensive words to describe the enemies of Elyon, such as "whores." Yet Thomas maintains that Elyon's love for everyone demands that the members of The Circle love their enemies just as Elyon does.

I am moved to share this part of the story for a very specific reason. Many of us so-called "Christians" are compelled to not only proselytize others, but to use our self-righteousness to condemn those who do not believe as we do. Sure, we are commanded to share the gospel, but we must maintain our love for everyone. We can condemn the sinful actions of others, but we lose all credibility when we resort to personal insults and ad hominen attacks directed toward the enemies of our God. Indeed, only Satan is the true enemy of God. He wants all mankind to bow at his feet; he wants all to accept the gift of his Son's sacrifice.

(Ro. 14:11) "It is written: ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’ "

Stop getting mired in the crap that infects the world (such as politics) and focus on the mission, and the mission begins with Love.

A concealed carry permit would have done what only it and Louisianna can do--castrate sex offenders who dare to attack our most vulnerable citizens!

The title is a bit confusing, I admit, but the message is there nonetheless. First, let's be honest. Cops and "the law" do not do a very good job preventing violent crime. They are mostly investigators of prior bad acts. Except for stopping DUI offenders from worsening the situation by actually killing people in the act of drunk driving, cops are usually involved after the crime is either begun or entirely completed.

The victims are already dead, abused or violated.

Security systems and well-armed citizens prevent crime. Cops just arrest the criminals and bring them to justice.

Recently, a perverted scumbag engaged in a string of sexual batteries and assaults in broad daylight (around the lunchtime hour) in Wichita, Kansas. In one particular attack, he tore the woman's clothes off while she yelled at the top of her lungs at passersby, a few of which were within a stone's throw of her and her assailant and definitely heard her screams for help. No one stopped to help. To be clear, they might have been frightened. However, man or woman, I suspect that three or more decades ago they would have attacked the perp in mass and stopped the assault from progressing as far as it did. THE SELFISH "ME" GENERATION OF AMERICANS ARE SIMPLY TOO SELFISH AND COWARDLY TO PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY FOR THOSE UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!! That being said, I suspect that one additional factor might have stopped the scumbag from doing what he did (I will spare you details for the sake of the victim). Had she been armed with a gun, she could have brought it to bear on the assailant and either killed him or shot his nuts off.

Today, only one state, Louisiana, permits castration of repeat sex offenders (which I doubt the Supremes will let stand--they already ruled the same state's death penalty for child molestors as being too harsh a punishment for the crime committed. Tell that to the 5 year old who will live forever with the memory of the violent rape of her innocence). Too bad. Regardless of whether rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence, men such as the above don't deserve nuts. Cut 'em off and spare society of "fertile" deviants.

You can take my gun...by taking it out of my cold, dead fingers

To paraphrase the recent Supreme Court decision, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and just because you are an incompetent government that has no clue how to deal with violent crime doesn't mean you can take away my God-given right to defend myself. Take that you darn liberals!

A little sin goes a long way

Christ said that if you break the least of these sins you've broken them all. (Can't give you the verse right now--I'm away from my Bible.) As an evangelical criminal defense attorney, I can attest to the absolute truth of this verse, at least in the context of what sinning "a little" can lead to.

The social drinker who gets nailed for his first DUI and loses his job as a result. His entire family will pay for his "little sin" by losing a home (there's mandatory DL suspension in all states, and if the job requires travel, he's toast) and whatever else the cut in pay causes.

The guy who thinks "a little porn" is okay. He's an adult after all. Then he gets spammed by kiddie porn sites, clicks on one of the links and peeks for just a few minutes, then gets raided by the FBI and local cops that take his computer, find the offensive images, and then give them to the DA or US Attorney. He has no choice but to plead guilty, serves a couple of years in prison (or likely much more), and is on the "sexual offender" registration lists for the rest of his life. Needless to say, his life is ruined forever.

A "little sin" goes a long way.

I'm often asked why I don't drink. My experience defending DUIs is clear enough an answer to this question. It's not even about sin, it's about the consequences. I simply don't think a numbed brain is worth it.

I'm not asked about the porn thing. Personally, I like the idea of not living a double life. Telling my wife I love her, then slinking away to my home office to look at dirty pictures. It would demean her and my own body. Not worth it.

A "little sin" isn't worth the price I'd pay all around for giving in to very temporary pleasures.

One more point on the porn thing. If you think you can surf the web and not be noticed by law enforcement, you are a fool. They know everything, and it's a good bet that any porn chat room you've been in has law enforcement participating. Don't do it.

A "little sin" does great harm.

Some people just don't get the concept of leading by example

Here's a shocker for you: Another NFL star was arrested for DUI. What a waste of talent. It makes me wonder why God chooses to bless so many stupid, undisciplined and mostly fatherless men with gifts that can only make their lives more challenging and less moral.

Lawrence Phillips, Michael Vick, Travis Henry, et al.

It makes me reflect even more on my pastor's Fathers' Day message this past Sunday. He preached on how critical it is in our society for men to act like men, and for fathers to behave as fathers should. He capped it off by playing a recording of a 60 Minutes story on juvenile delinquents. Not dilinquent humans, but delinquent elephants. The elephants had been transported to wildlife preserves as virtual babes, and began killing rhinos when they reached their teens. They were also harrassing tourists and generally behaving badly. Many had to be killed they were turning so deadly. But here's the real lesson. They found out that the root of the problem was the lack of adult male elephants to keep them in line and to model for them the proper behavior patterns, including mating before they were ready.

As I watched the special I pondered how similar the elephants' misbehavior was to urban youths. No fathers, so the youth run amuck and behave like animals. Now take that poor behavior and give it athletic talent and a few million dollars to boot. BAM! You have even poorer behavior and anti-social conduct. Add to that the tendency for society to look the other way as long as the athlete performs on the football field and you get bigger headaches and more dangerous conduct.

It reminds me of a client I recently represented (a caucasian, by the way). Young high school kid has loads of athletic talent. Even got a scholarship to college. Kid picked up one drug or alcohol offense after another. Right when I thought he got the message, he'd pick up another charge. Arrogant, prideful, talented kid. Lives with his mom since his parents divorced. Shocking! Just about the only light at the end of this tunnel is that he at least knows who his daddy is.

In summation, some parts of our society are screwed. Fewer and fewer fathers are marrying mothers; fewer and fewer children have the benefit (necessity) of a mom and dad living under the same roof. We are reaching a breaking point, or critical mass. When it breaks we might as well move to the mountains to protect our families. Otherwise, our own sons and daughters might not survive to see adulthood.

SLUGS FOR OBAMA!

I can’t recall where, exactly, I heard that slogan, but my own experience with paid sick leave compels me to blog about it here.

First, some background on that experience. I struck out in private practice more than 7 years ago. In that time I’ve hired and fired a few secretaries. The ones I fired had one thing in common: As soon as I added the “benefit” of sick leave, they stopped being reliable, productive employees and started taking lots of time off. Usually, the time they took off coincided with my busiest and most stress-filled days. What’s most interesting is the fact that before the benefit of paid sick days was provided to them, they tended to show up for work when they had little sniffles, but afterwards they took time off no matter how serious or major the illness was.

I have a philosophy for “sick days” that I’ve practiced since youth. The way I look at it, if I show up sick and work through the illness, I might infect a few fellow workers, but it’s survival of the fittest, or at least the most dedicated (this is tongue-in-cheek, of course, or is it?). Then again, if you take a little time to look at how illnesses spread through your community you’ll likely discover that everyone is doomed to get whatever bugs are going around anyway, so not showing up when you’re sick won’t make a hoot-in-hades’ difference anyway. Also, as a parent of children who stick pretty much anything in their mouths and get every little bug anyway, I know that avoiding others when sick will only delay the inevitable, and probably result in others getting the bug when it’s just a little bit more virulent.

SICK DAYS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXCUSE TO SLACK OFF! Or, as the scripture says, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10)."

Ever know anyone who viewed sick days as a “perk” that must be used or lost so they took time off even when they weren’t sick at all? Losers! That’s my view of suck types. As a small business owner and professional, I can’t call in sick. My clients need me to be with them in court even when I’m under the weather. I am dedicated to serving them, even when I don’t feel like it. I felt the same way when I was an employee. I was hired to serve, not be served:

Mt 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Mt 20:26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
Mt 20:27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
Mt 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Back to the point. Ohio has a initiative on the upcoming ballot that would require all employers with 25 or more employees to provide 7 days “paid” sick leave. Proponents say that such a “benefit” will increase productivity. My experience and that of other small business owners tells me otherwise. The more money you give for doing nothing, the more people will do nothing.

Conspiracy theorists believe that this was added to the ballot to tilt Ohio’s precarious political scale in favor of Barack Obama. It is believed that the citizens most willing to show up just to vote for such an anti-employer initiative are more likely to vote for a liberal Obama while they’re at it.

SLUGS FOR OBAMA!

Simply put, if a politician caters to those in society who are less productive and more dependent on leaders who empower them to work less, I will scream from the roof tops the need to boot such clueless, patronizing bums out of elective office. If you are such a slug, good luck to you. You are destined to be dependent on others for the rest of your life. I myself prefer to depend on God and me. Period.

Bad news for freedom-loving people everywhere

For Release: June 12, 2008Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4100 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling Called "Chilling"; Will Cost American Lives

Washington, D.C. - Responding to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allows suspected terrorists to challenge their incarceration, Project 21's Kevin Martin is criticizing the Court, saying this decision puts national security at risk and sends a confusing signal to the military."As a Navy veteran who supported and defended our Constitution at home and abroad, today's Supreme Court ruling benefiting suspected terrorists is deeply disappointing," said Martin. "To grant suspected terrorists the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation is wrong. I consider this one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime. Giving alleged foreign combatants the same rights as any American provides potential ammunition to those with political agendas running counter to the commander-in-chief. Our nation's enemies will now have the ability to gum up our federal courts with baseless legal challenges and further hinder the pursuit of justice."

In the razor-thin 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decision allows suspected terrorists such as those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts. It overturns a law passed in 2006 that limited judicial jurisdiction and affects 270 suspected terrorists currently being held by the U.S. military - including 14 suspects al Qaeda members.

Writing in dissent, and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 2006 law struck down today was "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation... One cannot help but think... think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."

In another scathing dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Scalia wrote that the majority decision "warps the Constitution" and that "[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." Scalia further warned the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today." Scalia also noted that a practical affect of the decision will likely be harm to enemy combatants, as the decision is likely to result in enemy combatants being turned over to other nations by the United States following capture. Martin added: "This sends a confounding message to our men and women in uniform, within our intelligence community and to our allies. Their hard-fought efforts to capture terrorist suspects maybe for naught because they could simply be released back on the battlefield on a legal technicality."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice in the African-American community since 1992. For more information about Project 21 or the views of its members, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.