There is one thing I cannot stand in people and it is the tendency to suck up to other individuals or groups. Unfortunately, that is what Barrack Obama seems to do the best. Whether it is apologizing to Japan for Hiroshima, or catering Muslim leaders Obama always uses the submissive doggy role even though he is the leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Obama presents himself and this country as a weak passive nation in a time when a strong leadership attitude is needed.

After 9/11, George W. Bush immediately visited the nearest mosque to state that those terrorists had hijacked a "great religion." And ever since it has been a common theme to belly rub the Muslim world. To point out, GWB obviously made that speech to calm the fears of Muslims and to garner brownie points; a common place practice among politicians. However, Obama has taken it to the extreme. Organizing dinners to celebrate Muslim holidays, then sucking up at the dinner party on how special Islam is and all the peace and what not. Obama also feels compelled to be obsequious towards the Saudis.

Along with the desire on Obama's part to play flatterer with Muslim leaders another habit of his is to apologize for America around the world. In fact, Mr. President has expressed regret for just about everything we've done. He talked to the leader of Japan and apologized for the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki like it was the result of reckless behavior on our part when in fact it was the only course of action that would have ended the war. Furthermore, our beloved president always remembers to apologize for the "pride" of the American people as if the American people are his children. For some reason the American people are more patriotic than most nations are, but that is nothing to be sorry about. The American people are proud of their nation because it is exceptional, however, Obama does not share our patriotism.

Obama views the constitution and the separation of the branches of government as an obstruction to progress then it is no surprise that he apologizes for the United States of America's exceptionalism to every country. In other words it is like saying one is sorry for being more successful than another. To conclude, Obama is a natural suck up and no leader should ever act that way.

God bless the United States of America . . .

~EGOE~OUT~

Romans 5:1-11 ESV

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

For some it might seem sacrilege to criticize the esteemed Dr. Paul, however, with my record it is only proper. The god-like status given to this man is incredible and it reminds me of another presidential candidate who garnered the devotion and praise of the majority of Americans. Although the majority of what Ron Paul says is correct, and I agree with most of what he says, his foreign policy is dangerous and all together ignorant. In addition, his view of radical Islam and its threat is completely twisted and includes serious errors which are hazardous to this nation's security.

During a republican presidential candidate debate Ron Paul explicitly stated that al Qaeda's motivation for attacking the US was a direct link to our occupation of their land. This of course is al Qaeda propaganda; nevertheless, Ron Paul fell hook, line, and sinker into the propaganda trap spouting al Qaeda's lies:

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing – [audience booing] I didn't say that. I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. [1] [Full transcript here]

This statement is not surprising. Two weeks before the 9/11 anniversary Ron Paul blamed the attacks on the US government's "occupation" of the Middle East. Saying that Islam is not the motivation behind the jihadist groups and that our "invasion of their land, [and] the support of their dictators" is what is too blame. [2] In addition, Ron Paul made an uneducated statement when he said that "One of the reasons they attacked us, is [that] we propped up this Sharia government [Saudi Arabia] and the fundamentalists hated us for it." If Mr. Paul would only research his facts he would find out that al Qaeda, and others like them, are jihadists. The goals of a "jihadist" are too covert or kill infidels, establish a global caliphate, and install Sharia Law. The idea that jihadist groups condemn sharia governments is contrary to what they have said and done. They might not like the administration that is in charge, but the thought of a woman driving is just not up their alley. Furthermore, if the "occupation" of their land is the incentive for terrorism than why have other countries not lashed out. The whole occupation of their land is again another means by which the US is blamed for someone else's behavior. Also it fails to realize the genuine cause of Middle Eastern terrorism; Islam.

Not only am I not fond of Ron Paul's blame game on the USA, but his foreign policy is filled pacifistic rhetoric that would not stand up in a computer simulation. While watching official Ron Paul foreign policy video I was bewildered when I came across his "Mutual Assured Respect" (MAR) policy or should I say fallacy. In short, He desires the "tolerance of other cultures and their social and religious values and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources." Then Mr. Paul made this little statement:

Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions; the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power. A policy of mutual assured respected would result in the US treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us. Offering friendship with all who seek it; participating in trade with all who are willing. Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.

The "basic principles shared by the world's great religions?" Was that a joke, because it was a bad one? The only religion that uses the golden rule is Christianity; also the Ten Commandments are Christian. Fragments of these beliefs exist in a few religions, but the overall ideal is not present. Furthermore, his statement about religions being distorted is true for the most part, but if I guess what he is hinting at, and I do, then that statement does not apply. Simply stated, Ron Paul does not consider Islam's teachings to be morally dangerous. Jihad? Sharia Law? Forced conversions? All distorted. Do you see the naivety?

On another note, not all cultures are worth respecting, nor should we. A culture that subjugates women and hinders a person's free will should never be condoned. Mutually Assured Respect assumes the best in everyone and that every country wishes for peace and friendliness.

The American born terrorist leader Al-Alwalaki was killed recently by American forces. Al-Alwalaki was an American citizen, yet decided to wage war on his homeland; for that reason he was targeted. However, Ron Paul seems to think that our assassination of this terrorist is unlawful due to the fact that Al-Alwalaki did not receive due process. [3] Yes, Al-Alwalaki was a US citizen, but he has been involved in numerous terrorist operations that have attempted to harm innocent Americans. In addition, Al-Alwalaki had declared war against his homeland which is called treason; his US citizen rights would have been void. He was a traitor and should be treated as such. Along with that, a secret memo, that just surfaced, reveals legal justification for killing Al-Alwalaki. [4] The memo covered all angles on whether or not his killing was legal and determined that Al-Alwalaki's killing did not conflict with any such laws.

Ron Paul meant well and on any other occasion I would be alarmed as well, but this was a legally backed elimination of a precarious al Qaeda operative who had wide influence in al Qaeda and was the propaganda organizer for the terrorist group. The man needed to go.

All in all, Ron Paul's statements and policies are critically wrong in their assumptions and motivations. Without researching the facts Ron Paul assumes that Islam cannot possible be the cause behind terrorist attacks on our country, because Islam is a religion of peace. He cuts out Islam and replaces it with militarism. He is sounding more and more like a liberal leftist; in a way, he is a cross between an economically sound libertarian and a crazy pessimistic liberal. He might have the economics down, but in this day of terrorist groups and rogue nations a superior foreign policy is the difference between tranquility and buildings blowing up.

Ron Paul does not have what it takes . . .

God bless . . .

~EGOE~OUT~

Romans 8:6-11 ESV

"For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."

God bless . . .

Christianity has always had to deal with barbarianism in its lifetime. Paganism always developed one way or another; whether it was the primitive paganism of the barbarian tribes of Europe or the cultured paganism of the Roman Empire paganism existed. Today, barbarianism is considered to be history, just an attribute of the Vikings, but what if barbarianism has taken a new appearance under the guise of being "sophisticated."

When one thinks of being "modern" it usually brings to mind having up to date technology, electricity, running water, and a whole other of "modern" things. On the other hand, one never thinks of being modern as boasting mass murders of babies, adultery, ignorance, or the worshiping of trees, yet those have become a routine image of our "modern" culture. In addition, if we are so "modern," so wise, so "tolerant" then why has our superiority dragged us further down into the pit of debauchery?

In the early stages of Christianity, we have always faced paganism that was prevalent in our culture at a given time. The Romans and their gods, the barbarian tribes in Europe, and the heresies of the early church have all endeavored to control the hearts and minds of believers and non-believers just as modernism, or better yet secularism has attempted and succeeded in most cases to do. Many pagan cultures back then sacrificed human offerings to their god(s) and now we sacrifice unborn babies for a woman's right. Many old barbarian tribes worshiped trees and the like, now we have environmentalists and tree-huggers that would kill to save trees. There were the heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism, now we have Mormonism and evolution, instead of the Biblical account of creation. As a replacement for the Greek gods, religions such as Atheism, New Age, and the copy and paste religions of our day battle for control over people's hearts and minds.

Then there is art. Completely and utterly perverted over the years it has turned from great paintings and magnificent architecture too hunks of metal being called "art" and cube buildings that look like they were made by the Borg. Artists urinate on a cross or burn a Quran and call it art, however, did not Native American Indians scalp people and call it art? Or warring tribes in Europe attach the heads of their defeated enemies on a spear and stick it in the ground, while simultaneously calling it art? It does not require much skill to create a heaping pile of junk and then label it fine art, fire year olds could accomplish what they do. However it does demand extra expertise to fashion a painting worth comparing too one of Michelangelo's great works. Unfortunately, grand works of art are on the decline, the same cannot be said of the subtle persecution Christians are facing here in America.

When America was founded on religious tolerance and the ideals of freedom it was done so by Christians with knowledge of how persecution felt. They had been segregated and hunted down by the Catholic power in Europe, and they had no intention of letting that ensue in their new found land. In addition, the Christian community had been victimized in its early years. Barbarianism and paganism saw Christianity as a threat to the power they had accumulated. Christians were treated as rebels and enemies of the current superpower when in fact they posed no threat to the government. Meanwhile, similar situations occur here; Iranian believers face a higher level of discrimination then us Christ-followers here in America, but we still face it. The Media, not surprisingly, gives the impression that Christians are dangerous; Christians are also judged on a higher standard than other religions. Although religious tolerance is one of our country's most prized attributes Christians have somehow been pushed out of the circle of tolerance as Bill Federer puts it:

"Tolerance was an American Christian contribution to the world. Just as you drop a pebble in the pond, the ripples got out, there was tolerance first for Puritans and then Protestants, then Catholics, then liberal Christians, and then it went out completely to Jews. Then in the early 1900s, tolerance went out to anybody of any faith, monotheist or polytheist. Finally, within the last generation, tolerance went out to the atheist, the secular humanist and the anti-religious. And the last ones in the boat decided it was too crowded and decided to push the first ones out. So now we have a unique situation in America, where everybody's tolerated except the ones that came up with the idea."

If modernism is another form of barbarianism than it retains its old grudges and hatreds and revamps them for the 21th century. Barbarianism has always made an effort to corrupt the community of Christ from the inside and outside. Heresy was a main weapon used against the early church, and now that weapon is the desire to "fit in." We as followers of Christ are supposed to be in the world, but not of it; a shining star.

Barbarianism is void of beauty, goodness, and truth. It might have something that is "beautiful" or "good," but without truth it is counterfeit. Modernism may boast the appearance of being sophisticated or evolved, yet if the shining light of Christianity is gone from it the only characteristic that will be left is debauchery . . . and truth will disappear.

God bless . . .

~EGOE~OUT~

Romans 9:14-28 ESV

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.""

Many are aware that communists are still vibrant here in America. Ever since the beginning of the Obama administration, the realization that communists still pose a threat to the wellbeing of the nation has grown. With the unveiling of Obama's "green jobs" czar Van Jones as a staunch communist, 9/11 truther, and a fanatic environmentalist numerous Americans awoke to the fact that communists are still out there and a problem. Another piece of information learned from Van Jones was about a communist group known as STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement) based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Van Jones was a member of this militant extreme leftist faction. STORM broke up in 2002, however we can still learn a great deal regarding communists here in American from their organization.

Two years after STORM disbanded several of its ex-members wrote a booklet titled Reclaiming Revolution: History, Summation and lessons from the work of STORM. The basis of the book was to explain to predicaments STORM had to face and hopefully assist other revolutionary organizations in their struggles. However, it gives an insight into American communist groups that would otherwise be hard to obtain. For instance, the authors mention that "the fall of the world's first and most powerful socialist nation [USSR] undermined the material strength and public legitimacy of the left around the world." (page 5) One would surmise that they would be pleased that such a malicious nation, giving communism a bad name, had fallen.

Additionally, STORM uses political ideas from several revolutionaries, including the Chinese dictator and murder Mao Tse Tung (page 15). This was not a surprise, since many on the extreme left cannot seem to recognize the guilty in their own party.

Furthermore, revolutionary communist organizations tend to support the wrong people which further alienate them from the community they are attempting to win over. Take for instance, the cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and STORM's stance on this subject:

STORM saw political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal as an important voice of resistance and truth for communities of color. We considered the fight to bring him home from Pennsylvania's death row crucial, and were concerned about the absence of people of color from this movement. (page 19)

First off, STORM failed to recognize that men like this are not the type of "role models" the black community, or any community for that matter needs. Secondly, STORM missed the motive behind the "absence" of support; many people do not desire to be associated with a murderer, especially if they know that it will not assist their predicament. In addition, their response to 9/11 was filled with political jargon and a low sense of sympathy with the victims. STORM, and many other extremist leftists, turned the catastrophe in a political club with which to beat on "US imperialism." Yet, that was their point, as they mentioned in page 29 was to ". . . [provide] leftists with an anti-imperialist lens through which to analyze the attacks." Instead of dropping the politics for just a minute they decided to play the blame game, "We noted that it is the violence and injustice of US imperialism that has put the entire world in danger." (page 29) Imagine your house is burning down; you are crying and utterly depressed. Your neighbor comes over and rather than comforting you in a time of need, he/she starts criticizing you for not having a fire alarm or not having a fire sprinkler system installed. The people on the extremist left did the exact same thing, then again, they are the extremist left, revolutionaries; the only exercise they are capable enough to do is to tear down.

It is important to realize that Communist revolutionary groups employ propaganda just as much as they state Capitalism is guilty of doing so. One of STORM's many inner "work groups" was tasked with creating and distributing pro-revolutionary propaganda to . . .

· To nurture new revolutionary art and artists

· To produce street level agitation and propaganda

· To bring cultural workers into political action

· To build networks among revolutionary cultural workers [page 22]

This work group was STORM's main area for advancing the organization's ideals. The writings of many revolutionaries, including Mao Tse Tung were studied by the group as well. In addition, several "agitational leaflets" were produced and circulated throughout the Bay Area with such common phrases as "Land of the Free?" and a sticker "critiquing US 'democracy' and the two party system." [page 22]

Along with all the information above that came from the document a long list of radical leftist organizations were mentioned throughout the text. One such group, Roots Against War (RAW), led militant and confrontational marches against the state, attacking and breaking through police lines. [page 7] Many of their leaders were former Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (RCYB) members. A youth section of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), RCYB's main goal is the "revolution of the proletariat" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat." [1] Other such radical leftist groups discussed in the manifesto were STORM work groups; Fillmore Standing Together (FiST), 4REAL, and the Direct Action Response Team (DART). [page 11] Non-affiliated STORM groups; Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights (BACORR), Bay Area Police Watch (later known as the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights), People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) [page 15], the Student Liberation Action Movement (SLAM), and a host of others.

STORM's life was relatively short, as is most communist groups in such areas. They attempted to further the "revolution," however, as it is in most cases, the revolutionaries are the only ones revolting. In addition, STORM had a complex philosophy, a mixture of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism and anarchism, and a disarray of inner and external problems. Their main objective, which is shared by every communist, was the destruction of capitalism and the ruling of the masses, but things do not go as planned. In fact, regular people here in American do not care about revolution or communism (some believe it is dead), to them it is another fanatical ideal that is not worth their time. As a result STORM and others like them were making an effort to reach out to the colored and working communities, yet misunderstood how to reach out properly. Revolutionaries support the immoral individuals of society and promote violence and destruction; which is the antithesis of what most people want and need.

Here is the original STORM manual

God bless

~EGOE~OUT~

For you who know me well, you probably know I am homeschooled. I've been homeschooled all my life; never been to public school and I do not plan on it. In addition, most of my friends are homeschooled or have been homeschooled. For me homeschooling is the best option for me; I learn at my own pace and I am not being held back because of some losers. The amount of school I do is not as much as public school and I also do not go until 4:00 or 5:00pm doing school. I usually end about 2:30pm, which gives me time to work on other activities such as music, Scouts, and reading.

One thing I like about being homeschooled is that I have more time on my hands. If I was not homeschooled I do not believe I do fully develop my talents as a blogger, political analyst, and a musician. Furthermore, my teacher (my mom) knows the areas in which I need to grow and where I have problems in; which helps a lot.

Over the years I have gone to one day a week schools for homeschoolers. Last year I went to one close by my house and I had a pretty good time. The work was a little challenging and I made some good friends (some of them girls). Now I am going to a smaller one, it's more of a co-op. One of my friends (and band member) is there, and so is my brother. The work is easy, but the writing they teach is useless and not the way I was teached.

Last year, I also went to a writing c1ass to help further develop my writing skills (you might have noticed a change in my writing?). The teacher was extremely passionate about writing, probably one of the best teachers you could have. She was tremendously encouraging and was excited about my blogging as well.

Another aspect of homeschooling that I like is that I spend more time with my family. I'm not working on school until 10:00 in the night so that lets me watch a movie with my family, play games, or just talk with them. Most of the time we stay at the dinner table and talk, usually my sister will bring up the fact once a month that my brother broke a window five or six years ago with a rock and a tennis racket and then we'll get on the bandwagon.

Ummm, let's see, what else . . . oh yeah! I really hate it when people think that we homeschoolers are dumb, immature, or that we are indoctrinated by our parents. It's a bunch of crud and they know it! And seriously, you get indoctrinated no matter where you go public school, college, etc. It just ticks me off . . .

Anyway, have a great day and God bless . . .

~EGOE~OUT~

P.S. if you have any questions about homeschooling or homeschoolers just ask, I'll be happy to answer them. :)

Well how's it going everybody? I'm pretty sure everyone's in school now and that we're all working hard as well. :P Anyway . . . I just recently got some new music. You see it's been a long time since I actually bought an album so I had found some great music while listening to Pandora and decided to buy two albums. Genesis Platinum Collection and the Essential Heart. 8) So now I am rocking to Invisible Touch and Crazy On You, The Musical Box and What About Love, and a Trick of the Tail. I'm pretty sure I've listened to Genesis more than Heart, but who cares. :D There is this one song by Genesis, Supper's Ready, that is twenty two minutes long! :o But awesome. It changes from soft and slow too fast and loud too comical and bouncy (best word I could come up with). And it has the longest set of lyrics I have ever seen. So far my favorite songs out of the Genesis Platinum Collection are:

· Invisible Touch

· Tonight Tonight Tonight

· Undertow

· Carpet Crawlers

· The Musical Box

· I Know what I Like (In Your Wardrobe)

· The Knife

· Behind the Lines

Oh and there is this song by Genesis called Illegal Alien. It's hilarious, because Phil Collins is singing in a way that sounds like a Mexican; you've got to check it out. The early Genesis with Peter Gabriel reminds me of Pink Floyd in a way. Most of Genesis's early songs have a political/societal message in them; like The Knife and the Carpet Crawlers. The later songs Home by the Sea and Land of Confusion also have such messages.

Now Heart is mostly love songs, like Journey, but they have nice routine guitar solos and riffs; like Black on Black II and Magic Man. Some of my favorite Heart songs are:

· What About Love

· Never

· If Looks Could Kill

· There's the Girl

· I Want You so Bad

· Allies

· How can I Refuse

· Magic Man

I'm also going to buy a Genesis t-shirt soon. 8) I'll post a picture of it when I get it. :D I'm attempting to collect shirts from all my favorite bands; I already have one from Journey and Boston. I really wanted one from Kansas, but those are hard to find since Kansas is also a state. :( But I have on my list a Fleetwood Mac shirt and a Cheap Trick shirt. I have now resorted to using Google to try and find more band shirts, so far nothing much.

Well that's all I've got for now, Enjoy your week and God bless. :)

~EGOE~OUT~

1 John 1:1-10 ESV

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."