God, History and You

on a more Personal Note...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:55:00 +0000

Now that the Fourth of July has come and gone, I'm thinking it's time to get back to my writing here...well, I'm vacillating as to what direction to take. I'd 'scheduled' myself to publish a follow-up post to my Israel piece, one focusing on the Palestinian perspective. I just can't seem to muster up the focus & discipline needed to actually do that!

Here's what happened:

After being immersed in such topics as slavery, Guantanamo, terrorism & counter-terrorism, and diving into other topics such as Presidential issues, earmarks, the Middle East wars, U.S torture policy...and so on and so forth...I needed a break from it all. I needed a break from serious reading and research of any kind, on any topic!! So I did something I haven't done in awhile: I rummaged through my piles on never-read fiction novels, with only one goal in mind, finding something all light and fluff! No serious reading for me, not for awhile. Nothing current events-y, no Revolutionary fare, either. Maybe some Patricia Cornwell, some kind of murder mystery or perhaps a romance with a suspenseful twist...

So that's where my head has been lately.

But as it turned out, I did come across a 'twist'. Just not a suspenseful one - and I found, for me, there really is no escape! Any of my readers familiar with C.S.Lewis will perhaps recall that Lewis referred to God as the great Hound of Heaven, may I say 'doggedly' (?) pursuing him, unrelenting in His quest. Well, in a rather humorous version of such Divine determination, I found myself most surprisingly confronted with the very thing I was (so I thought) escaping - and smack dab in the middle of my escape route too!

I'd unearthed a novel I'd completely forgotten I had, about a subject I rarely read. Its title was two-fold, a kind of lead-in mini novel called "Enchantment", followed by the meatier "Bridge of Dreams". Long story short, we're talking two hundred year-old ill-fated loves & unsolved murders, an ancestral English manor, and its guardian ghost. Not my customary fare. believe me, but I was looking for something different, and let me tell you, this was it! Set in Kent, England, I found the tale most absorbing. The scenarios switch back and forth, from the late 1700's to the present day.

So, the tale is weaving its magic, and I'm ensconced in it, when unbelievably...seriously, folks, unbelievably ! who do you think steps into the room? (the 'room' being Adrian Draycott's study, in 18th. century England) Let me give it to you verbatim -

"...From now on I trust no one." (Adrian speaking.)

"Not even me, Lord Ashton?" The fluid, cultured male voice had something foreign about it as it drifted from the doorway. The speaker was a tall man, with a high, arched nose and eyes of keen, cutting blue.

Gabriel stared at the American statesman who had already made a name for himself in England and France. "Is that you, Jefferson?..."

Just knock me over with a feather at this point! For the next two pages, and sprinkled here and there after that, our Founding Father briefly engaged with the hero and heroine of the novel, racing against time, flying through the night in a horse-drawn carriage, desperately trying to reach safety and save the heroine's life!

Despite my 'need for a break from it all', I was delighted! The story plot actually involved an element of the French Revolution, and that was in part how Thomas Jefferson made his appearance. I didn't see it coming, though! What a treat! Jefferson's time 'on stage' was well-handled, and actually very believable.

So now, I have no gumption at all to pursue Palestinian issues, yet am also loathe to not do so. I don't want to leave the subject unfinished.

Compounding my reluctance to stay 'current', I have begun reading 'The 5,000 Year Leap', (after reading AndyD's review (Political Friends blog) of it & then getting the book!) and the pull to sink back into things Revolutionary is gaining momentum!

So I'm hoping to work this quandary out over the weekend. Stay tuned!

Independence Day, 2009....by His grace!

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:09:00 +0000

"...My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1: 46,47, KJV)

As Americans across the nation, from purple mountains' majesty to the congested streets of New York City, celebrate the Fourth of July, as indeed peoples from countries worldwide know of this our great commemoration of freedom, I find myself moved by this freedom as never before in my life.

How precious is our liberty.

How can that which is purchased by blood be anything less? What can compare to freedom?

How great our God, He who designed this plan and He who also brought it to pass. He, the firstfruits, and now we, the favored ones who daily partake of that which has been provided for us. It is true, we yet fight for freedom on foreign soil. But we did not have to fight in that unprecedented American revolution that necessitated the drafting and signing of our Declaration of Independence on this day, two hundred and thirty-three years ago. We, my friends, are the heirs to Liberty! We have been born with that silver spoon in our mouths!

Are we worthy? Only because He has so declared it. More and more, I marvel, why did God place me in the great United States of America? Who am I, or, as King David so eloquently wrote in the Psalms, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? It is essentially the same question I ask. My only answer dwells in God's sovereignty, and His Word. He hath done, and He hath said, Amen.

"..this ball of liberty...will roll around the globe...for light and liberty go together. It is our glory that we first put it into motion." ( Thomas Jefferson, June 1795 )

God bless America.

My fellow Americans, may your Independence Day be a favored one.

Israel's Rights vs. "Cast Out the Bondwoman" ?

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:52:00 +0000

In recent days, we've learned that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has agreed to a limited Palestinian state. (I myself was taken aback somewhat when I read this, as Mr. Netanyahu has been repeatedly described as 'hawkish'. I'm assuming that his reversal of position here was a result of United States influence/pressure (?) experienced in his latest meeting with President Obama.) One of the conditions is that the Palestinians agree to remain un-armed. Not surprisingly, this is not going over too well on the Palestinian front, last I heard.

Having recently posted on viewing a situation from the opposing side (see article), thus getting a differing perspective from my earlier one, I'm more prone to attempt that same approach in other matters now. I can't say I enjoy doing this, and I believe real caution is in order when so attempting, but in search of truth and justice, such investigations become mandatory. Issues can weigh heavy with me, even if I myself am not immediately involved. Or ever involved ! But sometimes I am compelled, as the apostle Paul wrote in Acts, to "search these things out for yourselves".

President Obama's Cairo address included the topic of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I believe. In posting about that speech, therefore, my thoughts turned in this direction. As a Bible-believing Christian, I pretty much had the basics down pat, I thought, regarding Israel's right to its land. Numbers 34 opens with a clear and definite description of the boundaries of the land (Canaan) promised to the Israelites by God. It's right there, in black and white. In fact, if you back up to Genesis 12, we see that Abraham (called Abram at the time) and his posse "went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came." And at that point the LORD informed him that "...Unto thy seed will I give this land..." All you Bible students out there know the simple math of Abraham, Isaac, then Jacob - whose name was changed to Israel. Biblically, it was in the Divine cards, so to speak, for specific lands to belong to the Israeli people. And if you check out a basic map of this clearly-outlined-by-God territory and overlay it on a map of the Middle East today...do I really need to tell you where we find ourselves? (map)

About two years ago, I was thrown a curve.

Reading an article entitled "American Apocalypse" , I was presented with a perspective on 'Biblical prophesy' and 'end-time events' that seriously contradicted anything I'd ever heard, or been taught. The thing of it was, the article made sense to me. Still, I would've balked, kicked and screamed my way out of it, if relevant Scripture hadn't been included. But it was. Now, I can't quite accept the cut-and-dry version of evangelical, mainstream Bible teaching concerning certain events anymore. And one of those events is the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

It took a little doing to backtrack and locate this article, but I've done so, and am re-reading it. I'd forgotten the whole thrust of dispensationalism factoring into my newly-considered end-times position. I used to work in a Bible bookstore, and I remember seeing that volume (by Clarence Larkin, was it?) about dispensationalism. Never got into it, though. All things are summed up in Christ, and I've always felt that it's all about Him. Other areas of Scriptural study just have never really appealed to me all that much. Too many charts or something, in this one. Plus, don't call me a dispensationalist, or a Methodist, or a Baptist, or any other 'ist', thank you, I believe in Jesus, and Him alone. When it comes to Christ, why do we need to subscribe to the tenets of various movements, organizations, and denominations? Some form of identity security or what?

As I see I'm heading off on a tangent, let me rope myself back in. Because I really, really get aggravated when it comes to 'religious organizations', and rules, thou shalt's and shalt not's, and any other form of structure that can turn a living organism into an organization. Yeah, it's the rebel in me, the wild child, but I want to be free! And when the Son sets you free...you don't need an 'ism' or an 'ist'. His grace is sufficient. (Too scary for some, I know, but He can help you get over that.)

So...back to dispensationalism.

The prodigy of John Nelson Darby's theology, dispensationalism became more widely known through the publication of Charles Ingersoll Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. A key element of this teaching is that all Scripture, especially prophecy, is to be interpreted literally, and Scofield taught that a prophecy may never be 'spiritualized'. With this in mind, then, the land promised by God to Abraham and Israel must ultimately come into their (Israel's) physical possession, exactly as detailed by the LORD. Additionally, it is a Scriptural statement that God's Word will not pass away, and that He never changes, nor lies. So, Scofield and Darby notwithstanding, most Christians would see things this way anyhow. As did I.

"Christian leaders are zealous to ensure that U.S. foreign policy continues to be dictated by the interests of Israel without regard for the consequences in terms of Islamic reaction," writes Stephen Sizer, the above-mentioned article's author. He adds that dispensational belief in the futility of peace treaties between Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbors, and God's blessings on America while she supports Israel in all endeavors, is "deeply destructive" to American interests worldwide.

I remember being floored when I read these statements a couple of years ago. They fly in the face of everything I've ever believed. Yes, they sound logical but are they spiritually accurate? How could I even dare to consider...but as I've moved on in my life, I try to squelch knee-jerk reactions. Give things time, let them marinate a bit...so, bug-eyed and in mild shock, I filed this in the back of my mind, to be re-examined at a later date.

Which seems to have arrived...

No doubt, the world appears to be heading towards an eventual Armageddon. John Hagee made a comment during one of his televised sermons that a weapon has never been developed that wasn't eventually used. (I haven't researched that, but he's an intelligent man, and seems to know what he's talking about. So I'm goin' with, he's right...) And Israel is the hot spot of the world. It's not lookin' good. When all nations converge on Jerusalem, right?

But I've often been unwilling, even unable to concede to what seems obvious to many, if not most. Those twelve spies sent out by Moses judged according to the obvious, and their demise was swift (Numbers 14:37) - but Caleb had a different spirit (v.24), speaking and believing in faith, and lived, entering the Promised Land with Joshua (v.30). (Now, these Scriptures do refer to obtaining the land promised, against all odds - they could be used to in fact disprove the point I'm trying to make. The angle from which I'm approaching this scenario is, not judging according to obvious circumstances. Daring to see a different way.) So I wonder, with the Lord a day is as a thousand years...there may be more time than we think, and it may be that events transpire in a manner other than what we have heretofore believed, or thought. I know this sounds blasphemous, and I am not saying anything other than, I wonder...either way, God's plan and purposes will come to pass, of a surety, know this.

ooo

Now, one thing we all do know is that there exists an old and a new Covenant, Biblically speaking. We are told, in Galatians 4, that Abraham's two sons, one by a bond woman and one by a free woman, represent these two Covenants. The son of the bond woman Hagar was in the same rank with the Jerusalem that then existed, the physical, earthly city, and a type of the old Covenant "...which gendereth to bondage" (v.24). Now that old Covenant was struck on Mt. Sinai, and gave us law. Not grace, people, law...! Be clear on that! "...which gendereth to bondage." Scripture records here, "...Cast out the bondwoman and her son..." (v.30) (as was done to Hagar and her child {Genesis 21:10} ), because the slave child shall not inherit along with the child of freedom, the child of grace and promise, which is the new Covenant, the "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal.4:26).

There are two Jerusalems.

What I wonder is, when the bondwoman and her son were cast out, what they stood for was cast out as well - and since what they stood for was old Covenant, and the physical Promised Land description resides in old Covenant 'territory' language - is it possible that the temporal fulfilment of such language has also been invalidated? If this is so, then perhaps there really is a New Day for the Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps there will be another answer, a different and unexpected door that will open up.

ooo

I had never understood exactly what 'Zionism', or 'Christian Zionism', was. Now, Zion itself, I understand, with rejoicing! But this other...wasn't sure, but figured it must be good...right? Now, I question that cautious conclusion.. Mr. Sizer has this to say: "Increasingly, Dispensational Christian Zionism is being perceived as a deviant heresy which is subservient to the political agenda of the State of Israel." The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism denounces the movement as 'extreme', 'detrimental to...peace' between Palestine and Israel, and as reducing the Gospel of the grace of God in Christ to an ideology of empire and militarism. It rejects the teachings of Christian Zionism where they facilitate such action and attitude.

The good part is, and my heart thrills to this next - the Declaration doesn't stop at just refuting Christian Zionism, but presents to us the better way. We are urged to pursue the 'healing of the nations' through the 'gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ.'

ooo

I suspect that I sound naive and uninitiated. This may be. But truth bears looking into, and one has to start somewhere. In the course of my doing so, I happened upon a site on which a statement was made about the disregard for the plight of the uprooted and homeless Palestinians. Considering this crisis from that perspective, I've began searching out information and articles relevant to this subject. Next on my agenda, approaching from the Palestinian perspective...

Having said all the above, I ask my readers to bear in mind that I'm only putting it out there - thoughts, ideas and questions. And if backed up against a wall, my only response, if one was required, is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the great I Am. He holds the future in His hands.

This Moment in Time: Obama in Cairo

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:50:00 +0000

Tomorrow, President Obama will touch down in Cairo, Egypt, to meet with the Egyptian president and address the issue of U.S.-Muslim relations. (By the time you are reading this, the 'tomorrow' of which I speak will be at least yesterday, or the day before...) I had an entirely different set of plans for today, but as I read an online article in USA Today, reporting on Obama's four-nation Middle East tour, a sense of profound import weighed upon me. I have never experienced anything quite like it before.

History in the making, and far more than many, involved in the daily business of life and survival, are cognizant.

This moment in time is engaging me in a way such as I have never been. Though I did not vote for him, from the moment of President Obama's victory, I knew something was different, for me personally, as concerned this new Commander-in-Chief. Though supporting our former President George W. Bush, and though that President was in my heart, I was not engaged with him in the way that I realized immediately I was and would be with Barack Obama. Something has changed. Perhaps it is the man himself, but I tend to think it is just as much, the times. "To everything there is a season, and a time..." (Ecclesiastes 3:1. KJV) We, as Americans, as people, and as a world community are standing at a threshold, about to step over it. We are at a moment when anything, when all things are possible.

***

"What's new here is that people are listening to this president," said Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland. "They heard him empathize with their issues. They heard him express an understanding not only of their religion and culture, but their issues." (source)

***

We, too, must be willing to listen. Not carelessly, nor without caution. Not forsaking the call of our heart, nor our God, but I tell you, I read once that the attitude of the Savior is a listening attitude, and New Testament Scripture tells us as well, through the words of the apostle James, "...let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath..." (James 1:19, KJV). This Greek word translated into the English 'hear' involves the element of understanding. (Strong's Concordance, Greek #191). Listening in order to understand, while we hold our tongue and let anger take a hike for quite awhile. These instructions are presented to us in connection with the 'word of truth', from God the Father of lights, the Giver of "Every good gift and every perfect gift..." (v.17). He may have something to say to us, something other than what we expect. We may need to be willing to reconsider previous attitudes and approaches.

President Obama's approach to the Muslim world has spoken to me. I was surprised to learn that "people in Egypt and across the Islamic world want a better relationship with the United States", according to vice provost Ali Hadi of the American University in Cairo. Hadi said that"the entire world, including the Arab and Muslim worlds, was very sympathetic," after the September 11 attacks on the United States. And 76% of the respondents to a recent Gallup Poll indicate the importance to Americans of US-Muslim relations. (The monkey-wrench-in-the works here may be that too many Americans think 'extremist' when they hear the word 'Muslim', and don't realize that only 2-3% of the Muslim population fall into that category. Though the carnage wrought by this percentage is and has been great, the numbers of such violent men and women are relatively small, and we as Americans need to make it a point to remember that.) With American standing improving somewhat in the Middle Eastern world, and hopes in some of those countries rising as concerns our new President's making a difference for good, this may be the time in history when a door is opening that we cannot afford to shut. We cannot shut it with closed minds.

***

"We are a growing minority, and we are misunderstood and misrepresented," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "The president is helping to undo and break down stereotypes of Muslims and also break down stereotypes of Americans." (source)

***

About a year ago, a man showed up at my place of employ, with whom I one day got involved in a conversation about then-candidate Obama. This man told me that Barack Obama would win the election, which I already believed anyway, so that wasn't so unusual, except for the certainty with which he said it, and what else he added to his prediction. He told me that Barack Obama was 'from above', and was sent to fix America's problems.

After this conversation, I never saw the man again. No one else that worked with me recalled seeing him. He hadn't been there that long, so perhaps that wasn't so unusual either, but...I think it was.

Like many, I have also heard that President Obama is the Anti-Christ. Around the same time as the above incident, I was given a print-out of an email, sent by a pastor's wife, declaring absolutely that this was so. The message had an alarmist quality to it, frantically calling all to prayer. I was wary of the message, and essentially disregarded it, but kept it on a 'back burner'. There have been moments when I've thought, Hmmm...I can see how this may be true. If it is, I don't think any amount of praying will stop such an event. I don't think. However, I do think that the best course of action at this time is to heed the Scripture that tells us to "...judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts..." (1 Corinthians 4:5, KJV) There comes a moment when God shows up, and you know.

In the meantime, I wonder if it might not behoove us to avail ourselves of this declaration from the celebrated 1 Corinthians 13, that love (charity) "...believeth all things, hopeth all things..." (v.7). This may be the only way America can be restored, and move forward. It may seem foolish to some, but God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

***

Thank you for stopping by....please return for my next post, in which I will address, briefly, the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Depending on your Point of View...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:59:00 +0000

In my reading and studies of our nation's beginnings, I am frequently struck by an angle or viewpoint that may not be the one usually pursued.

It is said that there are two sides to every story, right? (Personally, I maintain there are at least three...!) Have you ever considered viewing the American rebellion years leading to the events of 1776 from the perspective of the English monarchy? Not, of course, that England was in the right - it just makes for, may I say, an interesting approach. From our viewpoint, perhaps 'absurd' would be a better word, in light of where America stands today... I just find it intriguing how a situation, or an individual, can be perceived so very differently by those involved, or by on-lookers, based on...based on what? Needs? Desires? Duty? How we can be so absolutely certain of a thing, but time may soon tell us that we were mistaken...

Of course, we want to be sure, we want to be certain...it can be uncomfortable and unsettling, if not down-right hard, to be unsure of what one believes, or what one should do. Decisions eventually must be made, action must be taken at some point. One cannot waffle forever. So how do we know? Often, we don't. Then it becomes, whether minute or major, a risk. Risk can be scary. To move forward, risking, invites bolstering one's self with the certainty of the belief motivating the risk. So we're back at Square One! Do we refuse doubt? That can be foolhardy...but if we don't...can we move forward?

At that point, I might dig into my mental pocket and pull out Scriptures, a favorite being "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5, KJV) This can be difficult to do, though! And when the building still falls down around you, then what? That's where the business of your own "understanding" needs to be re-evaluated. Your and my idea of loss, defeat or even disaster, and our reactions to these things, are probably not the way God is looking at it. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 55:8, KJV)

George III, King of England during those early Revolutionary years, believed God was on his side. He believed this with all his heart. Consequently, it only made sense that England should and would triumph. How wrong was that assumption!

Conversely, Americans came to see George III's rule as being any number of cruel, unjust and tyrannical elements, deliberately being applied to deprive them of the freedoms and the life which they wanted. There could be no justification for being bowed down by them, enslaved to them...yet the King could see no justification for the colonies not being subjected to him and his rule. On July 5, 1775, one year plus one day before the signing of our Declaration of Independence, King George III made his own declaration, in a letter to his Prime Minister, that "no consideration" would cause him to "depart from the present path which I think myself in duty-bound to follow." ( John Fortescue, ed., Correspondence of King George III ) He would "trust to Providence" as he followed this course, "compelling obedience" from the colonists. (David McCullough, 1776)

The English monarch did not want to war against his own subjects. Addressing Parliament at the Palace of Westminster, in October of 1775, the King explained that he had hoped to prevent the bloodshed and calamity "inseparable from a state of war", and expressed his desire for the people in America to recognize that being a member of British society, being his subject, was to be the "freest member of any civil society in the known world." ( William Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803) Ah, but we have come to know better...

In his speech that day, the English monarch used phraseology that put me in mind of words from our first President, George Washington, the leader of truly the freest civil society in the known world. Speaking of the "fatal effects" (to his realm) of American success in achieving independence, King George presented a picture of the British nation as one abundantly blessed by God, favored, vigorous in growth and prosperity, of which the colonies were a part as well as a result. Washington, in unused Inaugural notes, (cited in my sidebar) spoke of Divine favor and abundant blessing and resources burgeoning upon our continent, bestowed for the emerging young nation of America to do that very thing, emerge! The similarity in the sound of the words is, however, disrupted by a singular difference: George III was more than loathe to relinquish the colonies, whereas Washington saw the "salutary consequence of which shall flow to another Hemisphere & extend through the interminable series of ages...{he anticipated} the blessed effects which our Revolution will occasion in the rest of the world..."

I have done more reading than most about George Washington, and from that, I know that he trusted to Providence. King George, as referenced above, trusted to Providence as well. Both men were key leaders, one way or another, who believed absolutely in their cause, even more so as that cause reached crisis level. Yet only one led to the victory desired, the triumph most precious of freedom won. As my regular readers know, and my blog title explains, I see the hand of God in America's beginnings. Obviously I would believe that it was His will that brought to pass this victory, though not easily, nor without great suffering and bloodshed. Yes, I do believe that American victory was Divinely intended in this Revolutionary War. But I see another principle here, resident within that intention. Though "... sincerely believ{ing} he was defending Britain's constitution against usurpers..." (Conservapedia) , George III, the King was fighting as well to HOLD ON to property and wealth. He fought for the tangibles. George Washington, the General fought for so much more than that - though tangibles were definitely a part of the Revolutionary cause, that army fought for the intangible. They fought for liberty. Their fight was for the unseen, and "...the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:18)

Eternity marched with Washington's troops.

Surrender of the Hessians to General Washington

announcing, one more time...Guantanamo!

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:07:00 +0000

The Senate has rejected the funding requested by the Obama administration for shutting down Gitmo. Until the fate of its 240 prisoners is clearly and in detail determined, nobody, no how, is getting any money for it.

Is anyone else beginning to suspect that the Guantanamo prison may end up not being closed down?

Well, I am.

I'm so excited about that prospect that I'm almost giddy. I would probably be dancing around the room right now if I wasn't sitting at my computer typing this post. Time will tell, of course, and there's that whole not-counting-your-chicks-'til-the-eggs-have-hatched thing...

But -
behold the following excerpts from an article in today's Washington Post...

- "he {FBI Director Robert S. Mueller} said he was generally concerned that released detainees could "support" terrorism, provide financing, radicalize others or even participate in attacks in the United States."

- "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president." He added, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States." (Senate Majority leader Harry Reid-D)

- "But their {Senate Democrats hoping to get at least part of Obama's $80 million request to close Gitmo} resolve crumbled in the face of a concerted Republican campaign warning of dire consequences if some detainees ended up in prisons or other facilities in the United States, a possibility that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has acknowledged.

- "Republicans said they will continue to press for even tougher language aimed at forcing the military to keep the Guantanamo site in operation.

- "The bottom line is, there are things down there {Guantanamo} that we can't replicate anywhere else," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) ...Keeping the facility open and operating within U.S. legal norms, "is by far the best option."

- "...some {Senate Dems} are even echoing the GOP assertion that the state-of-the-art facility should remain open."

It seems that, as the actual event of releasing hard-core, America-hating terrorists/suspects moves closer, people are getting nervous. The Democrats who want to close Gitmo are getting nervous. NOBODY wants these detainees in this country. Who in their right mind would? They are dangerous. Whether people are for or against the Afghan-Iraqi war, for or against torture, for or against Obama or Bush, I think it's a pretty safe bet to repeat: NOBODY wants anyone with even the scent of terrorism clinging to them, in a prison in this country, or released and roaming free in this country. It is incredibly, incredibly, and I repeat for the third time incredibly stupid to release these detainees into this country. "We, the people" do not want them here.

Reading this piece in the Post, I had this ludicrous impression of the big, bad Wolf (actually, the Republicans) huffing & puffing & blowing the House down! (Dems trying to close Gitmo). Me having mental images of a political caricature is in and of itself...well, a first! But that's how it looks to me...

Returning to Things Jeffersonian...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:00:00 +0000

It was a close call. The recent release of the CIA memos was pulling me in the direction of 'commentary', but while eating, I leaned down & picked up a book lying on the floor nearby, to read & stir up my mind a bit. Get some creative juices flowing! Picking up where I'd left off in "American Sphinx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson" proved to be...well, stimulating is a good word, but not the one I'm looking for. As I read about the Windsor chair in which Jefferson sat, and the specially-made desk on which he wrote the Declaration of Independence, in a brick building on the corner of 7th. & Market Streets, in Philadelphia, I actually sat up straighter, almost thrilled, & started to cry joyful tears. I don't know if that building is still standing, but if it is, I'm heading there on my upcoming vacation.

And, just like that...it's back to Thomas Jefferson!
ooo

I had been writing about Jefferson's background of learning, where and when he was exposed to the ideas and roots of ideas that were, ultimately, so powerfully instrumental in the shaping of America and its systems of law and government. And I want to continue in that vein. But, while reading about him last night, several other topics presented themselves, I took notes, and while these ideas are still fresh, I want to expound on them a bit. So, let me get those notes...

First, let me just say - I am almost bedazzled by the mind and personality of this man. I found myself grinning inwardly, (if that's possible) and I'm talkin' BIG grin here, as I watched Thomas Jefferson's mental prowess unfold, through the words of author Joseph J. Ellis. And I suppose I should admit some of that 'warm fuzzy' I was feeling was because I could understand what Jefferson was doing, and how he operated. I almost feel as if I've met a kindred spirit...my heart goes out to his thin-skinned touchiness towards, and jealousy of his literary endeavours. Jefferson didn't take kindly to its criticisms. He nourished & cherished his works, he birthed them in solitude and they were his, not to be picked on, tampered with, or re-adjusted by others. As Ellis puts it "he regarded all critical suggestions as unwelcome and misguided corruptions." Jefferson had to endure a certain amount of it, but he did not have to like it.

(At this point, I've realized those notes are, so to speak, history! Can't find 'em! So, until and if I do, let's get back to business...)

I don't want to neglect emphasizing the early-years' learning influence on Jefferson's thinking. Seeds planted back then, in a fertile, active mind, produced much more than just concepts and formulas. And Jefferson's seemingly unquenchable thirst for knowledge factors into the equation as well...in today's society, he may well have been labeled a 'nerd', considering the amount of time he actually preferred to spend with his books, instead his friends! A close college chum has reported that during his two years at William & Mary College, Jefferson would "fly to his studies", leaving friends in the dust, and family tradition indicates those studies often took up fifteen hours of his day! (Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson, Section 1.2 - Education)

Fast-forwarding, from the vantage point of a major player in the creation of the new nation of America, Jefferson was the embodiment of the kinds of knowledge needed for such a monumental endeavour. All of the amazing men whom today we call a Founding Father, (or who, though we may not recognize their names, took part in our beginnings), were vital and indispensable to such a profound event. Each had his part. But the mentality with which Thomas Jefferson was equipped, and whose life's learning and experiences had produced that mentality, brought to the table that which would cement forever in place all those individual parts. The pillars of American government, and its liberty, were thus secured.

Over eighty years after the creation and signing of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's masterful sculpting of principles, arguments and ideas gave to "abstract truth" a form so powerful and enduring as to more than merit this high commendation:

"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society...All honor to Jefferson - who...had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce...an abstract truth,(emphasis mine) applicable to all men and all times...in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." - Abraham Lincoln

So I don't think it is in any way an exaggeration to stipulate repeatedly just how large a part Thomas Jefferson's studies played in the formation of the American way. Indeed, the way which yet today stands as that beacon of glorious liberty to which the whole world looks. Many, in hope, some with longing, and others, sadly, in hatred...but still America stands. In God's will and by His grace and mercy, for sure..but it was His will to so prepare the mind and heart of Thomas Jefferson that, resident within him was the extraordinary compilation of knowledge that made all things possible for America past, America present and may it still be His will, America future...

ooo

Let's examine some of Jefferson's educational history.

At the age of nine, young Thomas was being taught Greek, French and Latin, at a local school.
(Now, I don't know about you, but to me, nine seems a bit young? for Greek, French, and Latin?
( I must say,though, that is impressive.) And, as it turns out, the "study of Latin and Greek,... greatly reinforced {the} understanding of grammar..", which is important for many reasons, one of them being to "acquire as many words and manage as many concepts as possible so as to be able to express and understand clearly concepts of varying degrees of complexity". (Wikipedia, Classical Education Movement, 1.1.1 Grammar) I ask you: are we talkin' Revolution here, are we talkin' government and politics here, are we talkin' Declaration of Independence here? You bet we are.

Skills the man would need were being implanted in the boy. God took no chances.

For two years, from 1758 - 1760, Thomas boarded with the family of the teacher at a school in Fredericksburg Parish, Virginia, twelve miles from Jefferson's home. There he was given a 'classical' education. I was going to gloss over this aspect of Jefferson's education, it seemed inconsequential compared to bigger and better things! but fortunately I had second thoughts. A classical education supplies a student with grammar, logic and rhetoric skills. He learns how to reason, how to "to critically examine arguments and to analyze {his} own." He learns how to express his reasonings through debate and composition, to present his arguments well, and to use every available means of persuasion to do so.

(I won't repeat my 'are we talkin'? bit here...but it does seem like a handwriting-on-the-wall kind of scenario...)

Other phases of classical education involved the study of history as a context, illustrating political and military developments. The presentation of situational conflicts and problems leading to their own answers through forward-moving actions was a primary result of such teaching. And I don't think you can get much more 'forward-moving action' than a revolution for independence from tyranny. How interesting is it that the study of what has gone before can be what leads us into our future.

Included in a classical education was the concept of 'paideia', a Greek word meaning 'education' or 'instruction'. Greek citizens of ancient times believed in self-government, therefore such instruction was, rather than for an art or a trade, instruction for liberty. 'Paideia' encompasses more than this one aspect, but my point is that the seed of liberty was being planted and watered in young Jefferson's thinking.

While at William & Mary College, Jefferson enrolled in the philosophy school there, and was introduced to the writings of John Locke (1632 - 1704). Among other things, Locke was an 'opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.' (link) Sound at all familiar? Though I have not read any of his writings (yet), this source tells us that Locke's work "is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church." Again...familiar? Locke advocated the use of reason to seek truth, thereby determining legitimate versus illegitimate functions for institutions, thus leading to optimal individual and societal well-being.

Even in just brief research on John Locke, I can see how deeply intrigued one could be by his writings, and how profoundly affected. As, it appears, was Thomas Jefferson.

There is, of course, more - much more - to say about this subject of Thomas Jefferson's education, and I may continue in this vein in my next post. Jefferson is constantly cited as being a man of the Enlightenment, and perhaps that will be next...

Swine Flu got You Scared?

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:40:00 +0000

"It is... likely that it will fade away in a couple of weeks, because the flu season is nearly over, and there is no evidence that there is anything unusual about the way this virus behaves."

Read this excellent article, written by medical sociologist Bart Laws, posted on AlterNet this morning, & be encouraged...

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/139588/much_ado_about_the_flu:_is_the_media_frenzy_justified/

No Easy Answers....(revisited & revised)

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:25:00 +0000

"And for me, this war, it's more about preserving our American principles than it is about defeating al-Qaida. We can't become our enemies in trying to defeat them." (former US interrogator Matthew Alexander)

In the process of writing my next Jefferson post, (which ironically begins with "It was a close call. The recent release of the CIA memos was pulling me in the direction of 'commentary' but..." {and here I explain how I resisted getting side-tracked} ) when I could no longer resist getting side-tracked. Re-reading the recent Washington Post updates I've received, I am profoundly impacted by the interrogations information, the 'intense debate' over its release, and the choke-hold struggle over possible prosecution of the involved parties.

Initially, I was pro-torture. (Not for the sake of revenge - such actions only perpetuate the hatred cycle. Nobody wins that one.) My 'pro' orientation rather was produced by goal-specific effectiveness. I saw the core issue as being summed up in the following statements: "The most aggressive interrogation techniques conducted by CIA personnel were applied only to a handful of the worst terrorists on the planet, including people who had planned the 9/11 attacks. ... Information from these interrogations helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the U.S.,..." (as well as the UK, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia ) - former Director of Central Intelligence for the CIA, 1997-2004, George Tenet, from his memoir At the Center of the Storm. "... al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed... was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess." (CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described) The New York Times reported this, written in an internal memo by Admiral Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director for President Obama : "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." ( 'Meet the Press' transcript, pg.1) Lastly, former CIA Director Michael Hayden says enhanced interrogation techniques yielded critical, actionable intelligence. (source)

Approaching from the other direction: "...civilian and military intelligence professionals have also gone on record ...with respect to how torture tactics are not only ineffective in terms of getting reliable, actionable intelligence but have fueled recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to the point that, arguably, more U.S. troops have been killed by terrorists bent on revenge for torture than the 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11..." -Larry Johnson, A Memo for Obama

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as well as others, has stated that such information as indicated in the opening quotes above may well have been gained using other, less radical means. Admittedly, this is a possibility. Larry Johnson, former CIA officer and deputy director of the State Department's office of counter-terrorism in 2005 stated: "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust" when seeking to gain information from detainees. It would seem to me that in the aftermath of 9/11, time was of the essence, and employing less radical, more 'psychologically-based' methods would most likely have taken more, maybe much more time to acquire crucial information. Time to 'build trust' may have been time that the United States could not afford to spend. And yet, intelligence operatives are acutely aware of the time-sensitive nature of their business, so...

Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym, for security reasons) was in charge of a team of interrogators assigned to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Their success in doing so was a result of "techniques that {were} based on understanding, cultural understanding, sympathy, things like intellect, ingenuity, innovation" rather than brutality. According to Alexander, the rough stuff doesn't work. As I read through the interview, I find myself definitely re-considering a pro-torture stance. During the last 30 minutes of a six-hour interrogation session, because Alexander established a rapport and empathised with a detainee, "he told me that he was friends with Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who is now the current leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and who was Zarqawi's right-hand man." The parting with this information led to the parting of even more, which. provided a pathway to Zarqawi, who, as we know, was later killed by American forces.

As stated above, the reliability of information extracted during the use of torture is an issue. "According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear...al Libbi...fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment." (source) In this one instance, at least, the Bush administration made Iraqi war policy decisions based on such faulty information, sources told ABC News. (My note: This is not to say that the 'facts' supplied by al Libbi were actually not true..he just had no knowledge of their veracity or lack thereof. He may have inadvertently provided valuable information, as the subject of this particular interrogation was al Qaeda biological weapons training.)

To be considered as well is al Qaeda's use of U.S. torture policy as a 'rallying cry' and 'recruitment tool', according to Press Secretary Gibbs and others. Implied is the suggestion that the jihadists would be less likely to recruit as many new members, or to fan such an intense flame of hatred towards the U.S. if she refrained from such a policy. Maybe. How can such a factor as that be measured? Or proven? Perhaps when history looks back on itself, at a future date...at this point in time, I think any such result would be negligible. But that is just my opinion, and I am apparently wrong. A former U.S. special intelligence operations officer tells us otherwise in a December, 2008 interview on AlterNet. "...the No. 1 reason these foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq was routinely because of Abu Ghraib, because of Guantanamo Bay, because of torture practices. In their eyes, they see us as not living up to the ideals that we have prescribed to."

ooo

Democratic strategist Eric Yaverbaum considers the releasing of these memos to begin with, 'a flawed strategy', and sums up the torture/CIA memo debate this way: "Nobody is going to do anything differently that is a terrorist." (source) I tend to think Yaverbaum has it right, as far as the declassified interrogations information subduing terrorism, at least.

Former CIA director General Michael Hayden, quoted above, expresses serious concerns over the repercussions of the once-classified memos being made public. Hayden considers the release a "mark of political maneuvering" and says it "hurts the CIA's ability to conduct the job it is tasked with doing...It really gets into the head of CIA officers who are consistently asked to do things that are on the edge, lawful, but on the edge, in the defense of the republic." The former CIA chief is concerned about the power of doubt affecting the agency's operatives on future missions, knowing now "that the legal opinions on which their actions are based are subject to political change and political wind," thus hindering their effectiveness in action.

ooo

I wonder, might this very unsettling, messy, we-wish-it-would-just-go-away-but-it-WON'T! legal and ethical quagmire in which the the United States of America now finds herself , be akin to a deeply buried, rusted piece of metal festering in flesh. Corrosive, toxic...deadly. Perhaps this is our chance to remove it, and be healed.

Jesus talked about how the Pharisees of his day were like white-washed tombs, full of decay and death on the inside, lookin' good on the outside. Point is, it's what on the inside that matters. The intangibles endure. What do we, as people, as Americans want to endure? When I started this post, I did not know why I was writing it, or where it was headed. But I have done a complete 180' by now. I am broken, and broken-hearted, for so many reasons.

This article has taken its toll on me. I'm pretty sure in some places I'm not even making sense, nor connecting the dots right! There is so much more I'd like to cover, but this is too draining. Instead of anymore 'torture' reading, I've started a slow and thorough examination of our Constitution, and am heading back to things Jeffersonian.

ooo

Re-Visiting pre-Election Concerns

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:27:00 +0000

"There’s growing concern that under President Obama, the United States of America will turn into the United States of Europe. " - Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & Justice, "Is Our Sovereignty at Risk?"

Please, please, God, let me be wrong...

Reading the above article recently, I saw exactly what, during the 2008 election campaign, I had feared might become true being put into words by Jay Sekulow. Then Senator Obama's charisma concerned me. Hitler was charismatic. Jim Jones was charismatic. Jesus gets your attention, He can be riveting - but I doubt that He would be called charismatic. Charismatic people have a magnetism that can draw you...in the wrong direction. Too late, you realize you were duped.

People love to be caught up in the swell of emotion, passion, purpose. It feels good and offers {false?} hope. It is almost a resurrection. From despair or just plain same-old, same-old, we are thrust into the apparent promise of a new tomorrow...but I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the truth - the hidden agenda, hidden perhaps even from the one enacting it, (at first, anyway...) If you know the Lord, and look to the Spirit of truth to guide you into all truth (John 16:13), then you need to be doing that now.

Reading Bible prophecy, it is often commented that the United States of America does not appear to be represented. Prophetic studies are not my strong suite, but even I have noticed that. It has been suggested that America becomes absorbed into the European Union, and I fear this may be so. I cannot bear to believe it, but I can see how it could happen.

Please, please, God, let me be wrong...

" President Obama is embarking on a new and troubling direction for our nation. Many are calling it the “Selling of America” – surrendering our national sovereignty – our constitutional framework – all in the interest of international cooperation." - Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & Justice, "Is Our Sovereignty at Risk?"

In recent days and weeks, watching broadcasts of our new President speaking, I experienced the first flicker - barely a flicker, even - of my pre-election concerns reviving. I thought, It's just me. But it isnt't just me, I see now, after reading the transcript of Sekulow's interview with Glenn Beck. There is not always a place for a spirit of 'co-operation'. Sometimes open-minded, boundary-blurring initiatives can allow for the swallowing up of that which should not be swallowed up. So, while "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12: 18) is godly counsel for sure, there are apparently times when it is not possible. There are times when what seems to be a blessing is not that at all, but a curse in disguise.

We who see things in this light are in stellar company. Consider the following -

"...believe me, fellow-citizens...history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." - George Washington, from his Farewell Address, 1796

Upon leaving his second term in office as President, coupled with years of military strategic and combat experience, Washington counseled retaining always national sovereignty. He counseled avoiding permanent alliances, partnering with 'favourite nations', which he believed would lead to "...concessions to the favourite nation" which ultimately would prove injurious to the one conceding. Washington foresaw "unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained." And he also considered such attachments to foreign nations to provide the potential for the "illusion of an imaginery common interest in cases where no real common interest exists." Washington saw the betrayal and/or sacrificing of national interests, presenting itself as "gild{ed} with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good..."

A wolf in sheep's clothing?

For "extraordinary emergencies", Washington allowed for temporary alliances, but otherwise, he adjured young America to "have with them {foreign nations} as little political connection as possible."

I know it is a different world now, an age of terrorism, nuclear threats and world-wide economic disaster. International cooperation is mandated for the securing of international safety, but how far should America take this? Can we safely ignore George Washington's directives in the process? I don't see how anyone can think that we could...yet some do. (Related topic)

Read Jay Sekulow's article.

All quotations (except Jay Sekulow's) are taken from Washington's Farewell Address, found in George Washingtin: In His Own Words, Harrison & Gilbert, editors.

Convicts & Courtesans (Part 2)

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:15:00 +0000

(see Part 1)

When we last left the shores of what was then known as Sydney's Cove, Australia, an assortment of female felons were departing the 'Lady Juliana', a prisoner transport ship just arrived from England. It was July, 1789, and the women had been sent as desperately needed solutions for a sickly, starving penal colony comprised mainly of men.

In today's post, we're going to learn a little bit about some of those women, the events that brought them to Australian shores, and some unexpected aftermaths.

ooo

In 1789, English law could be harsh. For bullying and stealing the clothing off an eight year old girl, eleven year old Mary Wade was sentenced to death. While awaiting her execution in Newgate Prison, a " dark, wet, vermin-infested" place of horrors, young Mary met Rachel Hoddy. Rachel was a prostitute who had been tried about six months earlier, and was also sentenced to death, also for stealing clothing - although in Rachel's case it was from her client. (I cannot resist pointing out that her client's name was Nimrod. I just cannot resist...). Anyway, as it turned out, in March of that year, in celebration of being cured of what was considered a form of madness, King George III declared that all women on death row should have their sentences commuted to transportation. Five days later, Mary, Rachel and a couple hundred other women and girls set sail for Australia.

Now, if you think about it, (and ya don't need to think too long before the pieces start to come together!), you've got some crafty women on this ship, hungry, desperate and, I think it can be safely assumed, not too highly principled! Mix that with the ship's crew (we're talking men here, sailors to be precise...not known for a genteel manner!) and, well...I think you get my point. In fact, authoress Sian Rees has researched and written a book about the almost year-long voyage of the 'Lady Juliana', and its title - The Floating Brothel. The ship's steward, John Nicol, includes a chapter about the voyage in his memoirs (The Life and Adventures of John Nichol, Mariner), in which he tells us something of the women themselves, as well as conditions aboard the boat.

Sexual pressure definitely existed, but perhaps good came of some of it. Seven babies were born aboard the ship, one belongng to Nichol himself and the woman he took as 'wife'. (As did many of the crewmen and officers.) These women were delivered from a rotting, disease-infested dungeon as well as the sentence of death. They were provided with food and drink, clothing and medical care. And though records indicate some violent seasickness! these 'ladies' did have the daily opportunity to breath fresh air, and feel the sunshine. Compared to their previous dire straits, the women were, in a sense, actually truly free.

There were apparently some entrepeneurial woman aboard the 'Lady Juliana'! "Elizabeth Barnsley — a wealthy and successful shoplifter convicted of theft — used {her} money and influence to procure better lodging and even to create business opportunities on the ship." At ports-of-call, the former prostitutes plied their trade, much improving their financial condition. Money talks, and it spoke up for better food and sleeping arrangements for some of them. Fortunes began to improve. "By the time they reached Sydney Cove, they were fit and healthy, and some had even amassed enough money to support themselves." (source)

I don't know of records existing that would've documented the actual conditions surrounding the women once they set foot on land and began to settle in to a new life, and life-style. It's hard to imagine that there would've been no perhaps forced contact. Who knows, maybe some of the ladies ganged up on the men! But, over time, connections were made, relationships developed, children were born and families were formed. This kind of cohesiveness brought stability with it, and gradually a more normal society came to exist in Sydney's Cove. The phoenix rose out of the ashes.

ooo

Our clothes-stealing little bully, Mary Wade, sentenced to die at the tender young age of eleven, instead lived to the ripe old age of 87, and became the matriarch of one of the largest families in the world, with over 300 descendants alive during her lifetime.

Rachel Hoddy, our lady of ill repute, thrived almost beyond belief. During her time at the penal colony, she paired off with one of the convicts and eventually gave birth to six or seven children; leaving him once her sentencing was completed, Rachel received a land grant, obtained a license to sell wine & beer, and opened her own pub,'the Horse and the Groom'. Additionally, Rachel became a homeowner. She acquired not one but two houses! May I say, way to go, Rachel!!! (source)

Yet another one of the women prisoners aboard the "Lady Juliana" was Ann Marsh, convicted of stealing some wheat from an open market in London. Once her sentence was served, "Ann... founded the Parramatta River Boat Service, a line that still runs today." She "... became one of Sydney's foremost entrepreneurs, owning a pub, a butchery and general store..." (source)

In more than one reference source, these convict women, as well as unknown others arriving that day in 1789, from across an ocean, almost a year's journey away, are called the founding mothers of Australia. And so they were.

ooo

I can't help but be reminded, as I read about these scurrilous, crafty, bawdy women who were destined for a place in the genealogy of a world-famous city, of another such woman - Rahab the harlot of Old Testament fame. Though a prostitute, you will find her name in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (Matthew 1: 5)

ooo

This post was inspired by a PBS television broadcast, Secrets of the Dead: Voyage of the Courtesans.

...so What is It with this whole 'First Lady' Thing?

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:15:00 +0000

Yesterday I was reading an article about the rise in Michelle Obama's popularity ratings. Having read as well many of the comments on the article, I find that, a day later, I am still more than a little bit aggravated as concerns the need of many to put-down. Don't get me started...too late, people, I'm headin' for the warpath...! I woke up this morning forming this post in my mind, and though I've detoured onto checking stats, e-mail, etc., & feeling guilty for not getting started cleaning! I have officially caved in to my need to express this aggravation...

This topic can be approached from various angles, not just the 'put-down' one. There's the whole 'projection' issue, too... and why are we even doing any of this in the first place? Who made us judges of another, judges of a woman following her man who is following the call of his God? How arrogant are we! Really, right now, I am teed-off enough that I don't know whether to cry, throw something at the wall, or spit! (And yes, I realize I'm probably reacting to people judging me, as well, I get that...sorry, back to Michelle...)

There is no doubt that a whole host of issues are wrapped up in this woman. And we, as what have been termed 'sentient beings' (on various Star Trek episodes!) feel, think, react, and express (as I am doing right now.) And it does occur to me that some people are unable to control their reactions, (again, me right now...) this observation not meant as a put-down, btw, just an observation, that's all. Some people are bi-polar, have chemical or other imbalances...for the rest of us, however, my question is - why are we going for the jugular, right out of the gate? Why do many if not most of us zoom in on the negative?

Really...why?

Again, a whole host of answers are most likely possible. Jealousy and insecurity get my vote, or a sense of powerlessness.

So I refer the reader to the timeless advice of one of my favorite authors, the apostle Paul (who really got attacked, btw, and more than just verbally...) -

"...whatsoever things are true...honest...just...pure...lovely...of good report...virtue...praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4: 8)

ooooooooo

Here we have the original 'positive-thinking' teaching. Its roots are found in the Word and mind and heart of God, and it is a powerful antidote to the ugliness of gossip and spite.

And I know it's often not easy, nor fun, to change our thinking. We'd rather player-hate. The sin nature dwells in the flesh, and flesh is what we're used to and comfortable in. Unfortunately, the sin nature in the flesh produces such things as hatred, envy & strife. Vicious stuff. So it's good to know we have help. You save yourself as well as others when you try to "think on these {positive} things" .

And, lest it should appear that I think I'm above all this, and never focus on the negative...not true. Oh, yeah, I do tend to think I'm riding 'above it all'... until I realize that my mind is filled with the awareness of all the negative aspects of the current situation, or the people around me...I'm just not saying it. out loud. I really try to not make things worse. So that's a starting point...we all need to try to not make things worse, when we have the opportunity.

May the Lord help us all to think differently. May His hand continue to be upon our nation, and may He guide and protect those who serve in its government and its defense.

ooo

continuing in Afghanistan...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:11:00 +0000

Earlier this week, I'd read a Washington Post article on the Obama administration's latest Afghan/ Pakistani war efforts. By now many of you are already up-to-date on this, I imagine, but I feel almost compelled to put in my two-cents worth, anyway.

We have since seen our President on television, announcing the 'simple, clear and concise goal', to "disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda...", as was declared in the Post article. Bill Kristol stated, on Fox News Sunday, that President Obama actually overruled opposition from his administration concerning recent war strategy decisions. Kristol says that Obama is 'all-out' to win. Which is the very impression I've been getting lately. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told us this morning, on FNS, that Obama has approved all his requests for additional troops, and that the President is committed to this war effort. While our plans will need flexibility according to developing conditions, and a re-evaluation in about a year, until al-Qaeda is defeated and there is no longer any danger to the United States, US presence will remain in this very critical area of the Middle East, according to Gates.

Same war, slightly different locale...

The deployment of some 4,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan, scheduled for early fall, will provide the resources necessary to train and mentor the existing Afghan forces, expected to double over the next two to three years. Pursuant to this training mission, members of what has been called 'the nation's shock force', the US Army's 82nd. Airborne Division, are being included in this upcoming deployment, to serve as advisers in lieu of the less experienced, currently utilized National Guardsmen. A quicker, more aggressive approach is the order of the day, it seems. While committed to fight the good fight, still, equipping the Afghans to ultimately fight their own war is far preferable to us fighting it for them indefinitely, and the 'ultimate exit strategy' for US and NATO forces, according to one administration official.

In what I see as a stroke of genius, and a move which Senator John McCain calls 'smart' on today's Meet the Press, attempts to draw low-level Taliban fighters into conciliatory meetings with the Afghan government will be a part of our new administration's battle strategy. Suspected fractures within the Taliban movement may make it possible to 'break the{ir} momentum' this fighting season. According to the director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, as many as two-thirds of the insurgent fighters could possible be swayed, drawn away from the battle, by the addressing of their local concerns, such as clean water supply, or educational provisions.

ooo

Quotes

"There's no doubt this president has as great a challenges as any president ever has in the history of this country, certainly amongst the top three or four." - Senator John McCain

"The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is people to think we're staying." - Senator John McCain

ooo

"The situation is increasingly perilous. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." - President Barack Obama

ooo

A word of caution from Andrew Sullivan, senior editor, The Atlantic, caught my attention. While Afghan tactics and strategies were being discussed, on 'The Chris Matthews Show', Mr. Sullivan pointed out that while these maneuvers are underway, many are assuming the stability of Iraq. But he warns us that Iraq is not yet stable. Now that the focus is shifted from that Bush hot spot, it seems we all are letting it fade from the forefront of our thinking, as if things are settled there. I very much appreciated Sullivan's re-directing of attention to the Iraqi reality.

ooo

One final thought for the day - in reaction to Hillary Clinton's placing of US blame for much of the Mexican drug cartel violence, and accusations of impropriety on her part, not following 'protocol', Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, applauding her honesty, had this to say:

" Protocol, shmotocol !"

Convicts & Courtesans

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:27:00 +0000

It's come to my attention that I seem to need more time between my posts on Thomas Jefferson than I did when writing about George Washington. While accumulating the information and inspiration necessary to produce a post of substance, therefore, I detour onto various other topics & issues as well- to buy myself that time. (You can't rush inspiration...!) Which is why today's post (which comes as a surprise even to me!) is once again not anything Jeffersonian...

"Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things." (Joel 2:21 KJV)
"I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten..." (v.25)

Did you know that the most heavily-populated city in Australia, the city of Sydney, began its existence as a miserable, seemingly God-forsaken English penal colony? A thriving metropolis that today boasts well over four million residents once was a dumping ground for the criminal and the unwanted. Once only the destination for murderers, thieves and prostitutes, today this same locale is rated a beta world city, and ranks 16th. in Foreign Policy's 2008 Global Cities Index . This motley group of miscreants spawned the city that would eventually "help set global agendas, weather transnational dangers, and serve as [one of] the hubs of global integration." (Wikipedia, "Global City", 2008 Foreign Policy Ranking)

Talk about redemption!

As it turns out, this post actually does tie-in with my main Revolutionary thrust. Then called Sydney Cove's, this harbor's becoming an established outpost for prisoners was an absolute direct result of the Declaration of Independence, (which as we all know, was written by Mr. Jefferson, our man of the hour on 'God, History and You'). No longer British territory, England could no longer transport her prisoners to American shores. Another solution had to be found. And so it was, on the shores of Australia instead.

Interesting how, as God and history would have it, both 'settlements' were founded out of the necessity of exodus relating to law. In one instance, fleeing the laws of tyrannical government; in the other, government expulsion of lawbreakers. How amazing (Amazing Grace?) that both 'camps' have so flourished over time. America the Beautiful and Sydney, world-class city!

God is good.

So here's how it went down:
In January, 1788, eleven British warships and supply ships landed on Australian shores, bearing among other forms of cargo, over 800 convicted criminals (link) Governor Arthur Phillip commanded the expedition, and his assignment was to somehow create a fairly prosperous, i.e., self-sustaining penal colony. Records indicate that exactly the opposite was what developed. Since the voyage from England to the outpost took about eighteen months,
supplies ran out and were not replenished. Farming attempts had failed, so near-famine conditions existed, and the lack of medicines allowed sickness and disease to abound. A shortage of women led to aberrant and/or violent sexual activity. On the whole, I think it would be safe to say that the colony was on its last leg when help arrived in a rather unexpected form. Expecting food and medicine, instead the prisoners at Sydney Cove got a ship full of females. Desperately needing equipment and supplies, the men got women convicts instead. An assortment of over 200 thieves and prostitutes disembarked the 'Lady Juliana' in July of 1789, and basically saved the day.

Girl power! Chicks rule!

(Well, "...male and female created He them." (Genesis 1:27) Ya can't argue with that...the guy/girl dynamic has been known to work, and is a basic building block of society, right?)

Please return for more of the story, in Part 2 of 'Convicts & Courtesans'...

Hope

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:42:00 +0000

Several times now, it has crossed my mind that, as much as definite corrective measures must be undertaken to repair and recover our crashing (crashed?) economy, so must there be hope. One is no less important than the other.

I remember reading a statement by Hal Lindsey, a favorite author of mine, whose book "The Liberation of Planet Earth" (now re-titled "Amazing Grace") I was reading when I, as Christians would say, 'came to Christ'. (In truth, I would say He came to me...but that's another story!) Lindsey observed that man can live 'x' amount of days without food, and 'x' amount of days without water, but without hope, barely seconds. You may not even realize how hope is what keeps you going. We all are looking for the next step, something better, something or something else that will improve the quality of our life, or our day. Even if it's just your next meal. Hopeful expectations propel us forward. We begin a project, chore or just about anything! because we are expecting to accomplish a goal, see a result. If you believed there would never be that result, would you even start? Why bother? But if there's hope...

Proverbs 23:7 tells us that as a man "..thinketh in his heart, so is he." While this section of Scripture is actually warning us of the deceitfulness of the actions of a certain caliber of man, with a certain mindset, the principle is sound. You want hope to be in your heart. Christ in you, if he is in you, is called "the hope" of glory. (Colossians 1:27) Abraham of Old Testament fame, when informed by God that he, an approximately 100 year old man (whose wife was no spring chicken!) would "...father...many nations", became the man who "against hope believed in hope" (Romans 4:18). Now I'm thinkin' that a feat like that, a century-old couple having a baby, from whom no less nations would spring forth! is definitely comparable to restoring a national economy. I'm thinkin' that if one happened, so can the other. (Now, my Bible reading followers know the outcome of this tale of old, but for those who may not be familiar with the rest of the story: Abraham & Sarah's miracle baby Isaac grew up and became the eventual father of Jacob, re-named Israel, from whence sprang the twelve tribes of Israel. ) Time constraints prohibit a more detailed geneaological retracing, but I imagine it's possible. For now, my parting comment in this paragraph is: And the rest is history...

(Oh, and for you God-haters out there who may be thinking, yeah, well, look at the mess Israel is in, to you I say, this story's not over yet. His plans for Israel are still playing themselves out...)

One last Scriptural example (bear with me, my non-Christian readers) - although, again, the import of this statement is more spiritually directed, still..."...he that ploweth should plow in hope..." (1 Corinthians 9:10). The measures that America takes to fix her economy should be taken in hope. As conflicted and oppositional as parties and citizens may feel, or be, over these issues and their origins, solutions can be found. The imperfection of them shall not stop us from hoping for, and striving for, better ones.

What Thomas Jefferson Learned...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:21:00 +0000

Those of you who have read any of my posts on George Washington will recall that I often tied events and patterns together in a way that I believe showed divine intervention. When I first began researching Thomas Jefferson, I was sure that such a presentation was not going to be possible. I was just not finding that kind of information on the man. But I was only seeing the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. 'Diving' deeper, it's another story...

Previously, I've touched on the idea of 'ideas', declaring that results tangible and otherwise emanate from what we think. And that what Thomas Jefferson thought greatly, greatly shaped our nation and its systems of government. So, what was in Jefferson's mind was of paramount importance. What he learned well over two centuries ago had everything to do with America being what she is today. "...bedrock Jeffersonian values...determined the shape of {his} political vision...and...remain such a potent influence on ours." (Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson) So back in time we go, to the mid-1700's where we find the 'point of origin' of Jefferson's penchant for learning - his father, Peter Jefferson.

Peter Jefferson started out as a farmer, but his vision, ingenuity and what I see as an entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with strength and endurance moved him well past that. Young Thomas grew up watching the constant dynamic of a self-made, self taught man. A man who "valued education" and instilled that value in his son. (R.B. Bernstein, Thomas Jefferson). A man who seemed not to be content with what came along, but continually learned and expanded his station in life, as well as his fortunes. Having married into the Virginia planter elite when he wedded Jane Randolph, Peter then managed a Randolph plantation in addition to owning the Jefferson's land at Shadwell. He learned the craft of surveying and map-making, for which he earned some renown, creating the first accurate map of Virginian territory in 1751. His surveying expeditions also afforded Peter first-hand opportunities to acquire frontier lands, virtually unexplored and laden with promise, expanding his own estate. Going on to community and governing positions, Peter Jefferson became a vestryman, church warden and member of the House of Burgesses. If he had not died at the young age of forty-nine, who knows but that he, too, would've been a compatriot with our Founders? Such was not his destiny, however. His destiny, it seems to me, was to be that exemplary role model that a young Thomas Jefferson, fatherless at fourteen, would never forget. A father who blazed paths from plantations to politics, a descendant of Welsh immigrants who pursued and found his place in the circles of wealth and social standing. A man who broke out of the ranks, "...who clearly owed nothing to anyone but was his own self-reliant master..." (Max Lerner, Thomas Jefferson: America's Philosopher-King)

Talk about a spirit of independence...! I don't think a more effective image could have been placed in young Jefferson's sights. And perhaps the pain of losing his father so young, caused that image to remain with him (though perhaps unconsciously at times) in such a way as to ceaselessly prod Thomas Jefferson into fulfilling the Destiny that his father set in motion.

ooo

More to come on "What Thomas Jefferson Learned..."

Briefly: Earmarks

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:12:00 +0000

During his Presidential campaign, then Senator Barack Obama vowed to fight this policy that was referred to as 'earmarking', or 'earmarks'. I seem to remember that...am I mistaken? At the time, I thought I had a pretty good handle on what, exactly, earmarking was - based on the conversational context, inference, etc. As I am reading today's Washington Post article on our now President Obama's signing of a $410 billion spending bill that includes these notorious earmarks, I'm now wondering - do I understand earmarking?

Nefarious tones seemed to be associated with this, uh, business of earmarking. (Ya gotta love that word, 'nefarious' !) Shades of favoritism, it might be said. But then I got to thinking, one way or another, isn't any money that is allocated for any need, project or fund actually being 'earmarked'? Set aside, designated, whatever...where is the line drawn that changes the definition? Then I read this statement by Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) that " every dollar in the budget is earmarked", so I guess my reasoning isn't that far off.

Still, though...

Human nature, need, greed and just plain ol' love of money at the root of all evil being what they are, eventually earmarking seems to end up being 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.

Comments and clarifications welcome...

...and, next stop - What Thomas Jefferson Learned...see you there!

Christina

Nixon, Pastor John Hagee & Golda Meir

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:07:00 +0000

While switching channels the other day, on my way to The Jamie Foxx Show, I happened across John Hagee, pastor and internationally-known preacher/ teacher introducing one of his guests and explaining the upcoming segment of the show. Now, I'm never really sure how I feel about John Hagee. I often keep on flipping the channel. Something about what he was saying, though...and I must admit, Pastor Hagee is very intelligent, very aware, and seems to have connections with high-level personages in government and politics, both here and abroad. So I settled in, released Jamie Foxx 'til next time, and focused.

Hagee's guest was author and filmmaker Bill McKay, creator and producer of the docudrama TV series "Against All Odds: In Search of a Miracle". The film is described on Sid Roth's Messianic Vision website this way: "Those who think they know the story of Israel will be surprised by this collection of unknown soul-stirring stories of miraculous events that turned the course of the nation's history." Up for discussion this day was the Yom Kippur War, which occurred in 1973, and of which I knew nothing. By show's end, I knew little more than nothing about the war itself, but what I had learned far surpassed military facts.

Included in this docudrama are two accounts of events that took place during this intense twenty-day battle between Israel and the armies of Egypt and Syria primarily, in their attempt to recover lands lost to Israel in the Six Day War (in 1967). The Yom Kippur War was fought in the Golan Heights, the Syrian peninsula and its surrounding regions. The first account has to do with an actual happening on the battlefield. I was so engaged by the footage and the narration that it never even entered my mind to take notes. So, among other details, I don't have the then-soldier's name whose story this is, or how many were with him, or exactly where they were. But I will never forget what happened to him and his fellow soldiers on that desert battleground.

It was dark. The Israelis were rolling across the sands in tanks, perhaps other vehicles as well. According to McKay's narration, these troops were surrounded by the Syrian army. I don't remember how it became known that the men had entered a mine field, but one way or another, too late, they found out. All vehicles pulled to a halt. Each man was instructed to get out. Crawling, inch by inch, along the ground, each soldier used the bayonet part of his weapon to scrape away the sands in the desperate hope of uncovering mines. If the mines were revealed, then a clear path could be determined. Perhaps. The problem was, progess was minute, and the Syrians were getting closer.

The number 600 is in my mind, and I don't know if McKay mentioned 600 Syrian tanks, 600 mines eventually uncovered, or if I'm thinking about Pharoah of old and his 600 chariots bearing down upon the Hebrew children, led by Moses, making their escape through the desert. When God moved mightily upon the waters of the Red Sea, parted them and provided a way of escape for His people. In this scenario, it looks like He moved just as mightily.

The men knew they were running out of time. Then, something unusual happened. Not just a wind but a very strong wind came out of nowhere. At this point McKay informed us that in that part of the world, such a thing doesn't happen. This powerful movement of air continued for, he said, 37 seconds and blew away the top thirty inches of sand, ACROSS THAT WHOLE AREA, so that EVERY SINGLE MINE WAS MADE VISIBLE...

No mines exploded that night, in that 'field'.

ooo

When Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination, attention was drawn to her receiving that 3 AM phone call, and her ability to handle it calmly, decisively, and effectively. I did not know then that Golda Meir, conversely, had needed to make such a call during her five-year term as Prime Minister of Israel. And that historic call was made to then President of the United States Richard M. Nixon. In "Against All Odds: In search of a Miracle", Bill McKay tells us about this 3 AM call and its impact on the outcome of the Yom Kippur War.

This war began with the launching of "an overwhelming surprise attack" on Yom Kippur, Israel's holiest of holy days, when the entire nation comes to a virtual standstill. Even non-observants Jews honor this holyday by fasting, staying home or going to synagogue, and refraining from the use of fire, electricity, and communications systems. Israel could not have been more vulnerable. Until shortly before it began, "Israeli intelligence was not able to determine conclusively that an attack was imminent." (Wikipedia, Golda Meir - Yom Kippur War). Though Meir had been informed that enemy forces were gathering on the Golan Heights, she was counseled by advisors not to be overly concerned, that there was sufficient time to prepare for any military encounter. A mere six hours before hostilities actually began, it was decided not to precipitate events by launching a pre-emptive strike. This decision (later proved to have been a wise one) however, along with the erroneous interpretations of enemy movements by Israeli intelligence and leaders, left Israel basically a 'sitting duck'. The country was "brought almost to its knees, and feared another holocaust" (link).

By the second day of fighting, the slaughtering of Israeli troops and destruction of their equipment was so crushing that Israel's minister of Defense and legendary Six Day War hero Moshe Dayan began talking pullback and possible surrender. Meir resisted his mood, but nonetheless had an aide secure lethal pills from her doctor; should her Arab enemies prevail, she would take her own life. (link)

Golda Meir was known for her stalwartness, her iron will and inflexible nature, and these were in fact what pevailed. Israel did not surrender. As the reserve troops approached the front lines and the tide slowly began to turn in Israel's favor, however, arms and ammunition supplies were dangerously low. The Arab threat of an oil embargo and trade boycott had effectively halted European munitions re-supply, so Meir now turned her attention to the Nixon administration. At this point, the United States was Israel's only hope.

Meir's relationship with U.S. Secreatry of State Henry Kissinger seems to have been a bit rocky, and when assistance was requested from him, according to McKay's docudrama, Kissinger's response was to let Israel 'bleed' a little. (Yes, you're reading it right. That's what McKay reported Kissinger to have said. I heard it myself.) So Golda Meir picked up the phone and called Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America, at 3:00 AM and asked for help. And here is where it gets interesting.

I've done some background research for this post, and in fairness I must admit the evidence supports both sides of the coin, but it has been known that Nixon was considered strongly anti-Semitic. Yet by the time she hung up the phone, Golda Meir had all the weapons help her country needed to ramp up the swinging of the pendulum in its favor, and end the Yom Kippur War. "...the American resupply included 815 total sorties, bringing Israel 56 combat aircraft and 27,900 tons of munitions and supplies." (Col. Trevor N. Dupuy, US Army (ret.), Elusive Victory: the Arab Israeli Wars, 1947-1974). And what makes this even more interesting is that, according to McKay's "Against All Odds", as Nixon sat on the side of his bed, listening to Golda Meir's request over the phone, instead of hearing the Prime Minister's voice, he heard the voice of his mother....as a young boy growing up, his mother had told him that one day he would be in a powerful position, and a situation would arise where Israel and the Jews needed his help. When it did, he was to help them.

"Against All Odds: In Search of a Miracle", a TV series docudrama, in available on DVD and in book form through John Hagee Ministries

Concerning US Troop Withdrawal...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:57:00 +0000

(Excerpts: "Iraq Withdrawal Can Only Work with Pressure on Iran and Syria" -Walid Phares, FOX News Contributor

"If the terrorist forces operating against the Coalition and the Iraqi Government are to vanish as soon as the U.S. pulls out, the withdrawal plan (any version of it) will be smooth and successful."
My comment: In what universe is this going to happen?

ooo

"Iran’s leadership will sit down, talk, and sometimes listen — but it will at the same time continue its actions on the ground until it fulfills its own “mission.”....To penetrate, influence and seize 60% of Iraq from Baghdad to Basra as U.S. forces are withdrawing and certainly after the pull out. [Iran will use} special groups, the Mahdi Army, assassinations, infiltration in Government, etc...."
My comment: Extremists lie. Then they do what they want.

ooo

"...the success of the Obama plan will hinge on the capacity of his Administration to stop the flow of Jihadism from Syria and Saudi Arabia {into Iraq}."
The article's author states the need for quickly filling the 'void' left by final US troop withdrawal .
My question: how specifically would this be accomplished? Isn't it in fact the presence of our troops that keeps a void from even existing in the first place?

Read entire article by FOX News contributor Walid Phares

What We Need...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:01:00 +0000

( About one-third of the way through my next post on Thomas Jefferson....! Really, I am...!)

John Heilemann, columnist for New York Magazine, made an observation on 'The Chris Matthews Show' this morning along the lines of America being an instant gratification society in good times, and an instant anxiety society in bad times, i.e., times of economic crises. It is my humble opinion that truer words were never spoken.

As our economy has spiraled downwards, and that impact on our lives being felt in most pocketbooks and bank accounts, from corporate giants to Joe the Plumber (so to speak - I don't actually know Joe the Plumber - it's a metaphor...), government and financial experts and analysts have sought to pinpoint causes and produce solutions. Trying to be a better American, I've been reading, listening, and watching in an effort to better understand these things. Like most of the middle to lower-middle class people in my life, my interests were more mundane, more personal, and then suddenly prices doubled and I, more than a little concerned, lifted my head out of the sand and started looking around.

If I am following a trend at all accurately (?), what I'm understanding is that a major cause, if not THE major cause, of this financial disaster in our country was careless lending/borrowing.

I think it is a shame, and it even saddens me, that Americans...no, make that people...in today's world would even consider taking a financial risk, by signing mortgage papers, to get a loan for a home that is beyond their means, 'way outta their league', that they really can't afford. That we are so steeped in hi-tech that Americans...no, make that people ...at every age pretty much wouldn't even consider not having every electronic gadget and device that comes along.

We don't NEED the latest versions of just about everything, the newer and more modern automobiles and trucks and movie theatre effect televisions. The problem is, many of us think we do.

I have friends and acquaintances who, when faced with inabilities to make mortgage payments or even secure a dwelling in the first place! just had to have both fancy cell and land line phones, had to get cable right away! immediately upon moving in! God forbid we should have to wait awhile, do without, just until things settle a bit and some money can be saved. Many of us gotta have it, and gotta have it now.

Comments have been made during this economic crisis of ours, that there may not be a return to 'usual', that Americans may need to readjust their sights, their standards of daily living. Scale things down a bit more. A longer term life-style shift may be required. Because what people need is a place in which to live, and food for their table. Clothing. Money for the kids' college tuition. Money for medical and dental.

What people don't need is the latest version of X-Box, or whatever...

Tell Me This isn't Another Iraq...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:00 +0000

President Obama has signed the order authorizing an additional 17,000 troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.

This deployment will begin in May, and will increase U.S. forces there by fifty percent, in addition to the 32,000 NATO troops already present. The White House has acknowledged that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and American homeland security is threatened by al-Qaeda as a result of this. Taliban attacks, as well as U.S. and NATO casualties, in the Afghan/Pakistani area are higher than they have been since our war on terror began in earnest. A request for 30,000 more troops had been made previously, by the U.S commander in Afghanistan, and former President Bush had authorized them, but only 6,000 arrived this past month.

I personally am gratified to see President Obama taking this action, and I would say I'm greatly reassured as to his more aggressive approach towards combating terrorist activities, except that Obama has also stated that he wants to "limit U.S. objectives" in Afghanistan, according to the Washington Post. What does this mean? I would think, as per the title of this post, the president wants to do exactly that. Meaning, Afghanistan can't become another Iraq, and let's make sure it doesn't. Let's be careful how involved we get, and how we get involved.

Though Obama promised to withdraw our troops from Iraq in a clear, methodical manner, he has yet to begin that process, nor has he received any specific withdrawal plans from military planners. This signifies, to me, that perhaps a more cautious tone is prevailing here. Perhaps campaign promises were a bit too brash...? We are talking the security of not only the United States but the world, really; human lives, bloodshed and human suffering are the issues here. I would not want to be the leader with that responsibility on my shoulders. I cannot even imagine that kind of weight. Even so, I am glad to see that President Obama may be applying the brakes slightly, regarding U.S. troop evacuations, and yet I would also think it wisdom to consider our options in a regretfully necessary Afghan occupation.

Unbelievably, the response of the Afghan citizenry sounds just like the latter years attitude of the Iraqi public. They want us out. Or at least, less. A recent poll indicates only 18% are happy about an increase in U.S. troops there. Rising civilian casualties are, understandably, a source of resentment, and the coalition forces are gradually losing support for this reason, according to yesterday's U.N. report.

This sound familiar to anybody?

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll indicates Americans are divided roughly 2 to 1 as regards increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, the scales tilting against it. About one-third of us support troops increase; the rest, either let it be, or send some home...

Again, familiar ring.....?

AND YET..."...most Americans consider winning in Afghanistan essential to victory in the broader fight against terrorism..." ( Washington Post )

?????

(Source: Washington Post)

What Thomas Jefferson Thought...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:44:00 +0000

"...be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12: 2, KJV)

What and how a person thinks is all-important. What an individual produces is a direct result of what is going on in his or her mind, whether the result is audible, tangible, or eventful. Even a habit is a product of what we have already done based on something we have already thought (decided).

So perhaps you can see why the Apostle Paul would've issued the above instruction.

And which is why I marvel at a Thomas Jefferson, a man who was primarily an ideologist (Max Lerner, Thomas Jefferson : America's Philosopher-King), being such a major player in our national beginnings. I marvel at a God who placed such a man in such a place at a time when ideas were THE most crucial element in the ongoing development and continued existence of this young nation. (You cannot tell me, not now, not ever, that God was not involved to the hilt in bringing forth this country, in sustaining it, and in being the Source of its liberty.)

Okay, before I launch into preaching mode, or get side-tracked again by current events.....back to Jefferson and his ideas. (And, uh...I probably will end up in preaching mode anyway...).

"It was not inevitable that upon liberation from English domination America should become a self-governing republic. (Edward Dumbauld, Introduction, Jefferson: His Political Writings). George Washington had similar concerns. In his 'Advice to the United States', written at the end of the Revolutionary War, then General Washington wrote, "...yet it appears to me there is an option still left to the United States of America...whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a nation; this is the time of their political probation...it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse." (Harrison & Gilbert, George Washington : In His Own Words ) Now, today, it's easy to automatically assume that, once the battles ended, once Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the colonies were home free. Troubles over, right? But actually, a whole new series of potentially devastating troubles awaited, possible scenarios that needed to be skillfully avoided. An effective system of government needed to be developed.

While reading along these lines, I came across a list of types of government that have existed throughout the course of history. Thirty-eight, to be exact. (According to my list...) And some of 'em had sub-categories. Some I had never heard of, and a couple I wasn't even sure how to pronounce! Others intrigued me - for instance, when I have time, I'd like to learn a bit more about 'minarchism/night watchman'. How does a night watchman constitute a form of government? But I digress...

Americans were looking to establish the best and most perfect form of government possible. We still seek that today in that, though already established, the people and their government continue, daily, to operate within those forms and systems, yet adjusting, honing, and fine-tuning when so judged to be necessary. Far, far more than perhaps most Americans know, we owe these forms and systems to Thomas Jefferson and his ideas. The more I learn about him, the more I am stunned to my core as I see just how much we owe...

Though later in his life, Jefferson expressed in a letter his enduring belief that the equal rights and happiness of each individual are the only legitimate reasons for government. He believed that the main object of scientific study, as well, was the freedom and happiness of man. In contrast to these beliefs, while serving as the American ambassador to France earlier in his career, he saw in Europe a polar opposite, serving only to strengthen his convictions concerning rightful government. In a letter to George Washington, Jefferson wrote: "I was much an enemy to monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so, since I have seen what they are." (Edward Dumbauld, Thomas Jefferson : American Tourist ). Embedded in Jefferson was his passion for freedom, and seeing European '' governments of force" , "...nations of eternal war...energies expended in the destruction of the...lives of their people" served to ensure that such passion was embedded forever. (Dumbauld)

It would have been within the realm of possibility that another monarchy might arise. It was not guaranteed that a democratic form of government would develop. And even though a single governing body, rather than many separate entities, may have been formed, the resulting structure may not necessarily have been based on the will of the people. According to Edward Dumbauld, editor of The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson, it is because of Jefferson's influence that American today is not " an autocratic or tyrannical national government". It is because of Jefferson's influence, in large part, that today, over two hundred years later, Americans still reap the blessings and the fruit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a land where its government is, as the closing words of the Gettysburg Address resound, "of the people, by the people, for the people."

ooo

Thank you for stopping by, and please return for my next post, in which I'll hopefully continue to show how Thomas Jefferson's thinking helped shape our system of government. And, since I never entered 'preaching mode' after all, maybe a bit of that, too...

Christina

Just Comments...

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:43:00 +0000

Another Sunday morning's worth of political talk shows/forums, and I feel like I've been riddled with machine gun fire, coming at me from all directions and assaulting my brain. And no, it's not them, it's me...

Rather than try to gather more info on any one particular topic, I thought that, for today anyway, I'd post a few comments on the issues. Just comments. Just a few. Food for thought...

"...this is... the most ambitious recovery package in the... history of this country." - David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President , speaking of the Stimulus Package

"...the measure [stimulus] will create only 2.2 million jobs by the end of 2010, leaving unemployment hovering around ten percent...forcing...another stimulus plan." - opinion of Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at moodyseconomy.com, as quoted in the Washington Post ( Well, we'll see, right? Personally, I'm going forward in faith, looking to God for a better day.)

"You've got to spend now to get out of this problem." - Roger Simon, Chief Political Columnist, Politico

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are committed...to kill Americans, then I worry. [Protecting the United States from terrorist attack] sometimes...requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I'm not at all sure that's what the Obama administration believes." - former Vice President Dick Cheney, as quoted in Politico

ooo

" The Gamble"

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:21:00 +0000

( I really am in the middle of my next post on Thomas Jefferson and slavery....I got sidetracked again... )

As I've stated in a few forums, and possibly here and there on this site, I was a supporter of President George W. Bush, and of the Iraqi war. I was not, and am not, in favor of a 16 month troop withdrawal deadline. But we as a nation are moving on, there is a new captain at the helm, and I am trying to stay open (minded and -is hearted a word?) Anyway, until this morning I was...

Thomas E. Ricks, senior Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post and author of The Gamble, was being interviewed by Dick Gregory on 'Meet the Press'. This is not a book review, and I may or may not get the book (only b/c I have a whole list of titles backed up & waiting for me! to read). But I felt an almost tingling, compelling sense of urgency to re-cap some of this interview here. Though I took notes, I was also trying to pay attention to the actual conversation, so I may be missing some names & exact dates, and I may end up crossing my i's and dotting my t's, but I'll try to be as accurate as I possibly can...

The book's full title is The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006 - 2008. The title would seem to be based on a summarizing remark made by a former infantry officer (who became a defense analyst for the Center for a New American Security.) Saying that the Iraqi war at best is likely to be 'inconclusive', the analyst called the war a 'huge gamble' for America, risking her future power and reputation on it. Ricks extrapolates from this statement his own conclusion that as a result of these risks, the Obama administration will need to be taking its own risks and gambles, in such a way as to make the first year of 'Obama's war' even tougher than the last year of 'Bush's war'. According to Ricks, (and I agree) "alot of people back here incorrectly think the war is over." His thinking on this is that we may only be halfway through the war in Iraq. Ricks cites U.S.ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker as saying that the events for which this war will be remembered haven't even happened yet.

Of great concern to Mr. Ricks are the simultaneous events of a series of Iraqi elections being held during U.S troop withdrawals. When forces are needed most, their numbers will be least. And not only least, but lesser numbers in the more dangerous areas, which we will vacate last, as elections near their culmination.

The author says that while the surge was successful militarily, it was not so politically. The U.S. commander in Iraq, General Odierno, says that the 'breathing space' that was created by this strategy, intended to provide opportunity for a national reconciliation, actually allowed for just the opposite. Greater sectarianism has resulted. More division. Odierno says the people have stepped backward.

This General wants to see 35.000 troops left in Iraq - by 2015.

(Ricks states during this interview that there will come a time, during an earlier withdrawal process, when the generals will say, we don't want to do this, it is too dangerous.)

Too dangerous....2015....issues for extremely serious consideration, as I see it.

***

Author's note: For more of this interview, see Transcript .

Returning to Thomas Jefferson...at Last!

garnetgirl@netzero.net (Christina) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:45:00 +0000

Having made several unplanned detours, I am now returning to my original post topics, Thomas Jefferson and slavery. President Obama, Guantanamo, and Adam & Eve, having claimed my attention for a bit, are now being relegated to the background!

When last we met with Mr. Jefferson (link), the issue of slavery was being discussed.

It is not always an easy matter to extricate one's self from a situation in which one is involved, or perhaps entangled. It is easy to think that you can, or that others should....to think that life's predicaments exist in sharply-delineated colors and not mottled shades and blurred edges. The wheat and the tares grow up together, and you can't uproot one without pulling up some of the other (Matthew 13: 24-30). Which isn't usually what the plan was...

Hindsight is frequently 100% clear. If we had only been aware of what was being developed! But, at the risk of not making any sense, life is larger than itself and often we can't see the forest for the trees. Something seems convenient, maybe expedient at the time, so we undertake, venture, and/or commit. Unseen aspects are set in motion. Time goes by. One day you wake up with a monster from that forest in your bed. If only you had been aware...! you would not have taken that first step.

So while it is easy for us today to expect that the Founders of America should have freed all their slaves, just like that, overnight! I imagine for our revolutionary predecessors it was not so simple. Their ENTIRE way of life was dependent upon the labor power provided by their slaves. Harsh reality. And no one likes unsettling change, for the most part. It needs to be effected gradually. Wisdom dictates forethought and planning to provide for eventualities. Time was needed. The passage of time allowed for the institution of slavery to develop and grow, so time's passage also was required for its demise.

Jefferson and many of his contemporaries viewed the African slaves as child-like and inferior beings, unable to be integrated into the society of the time (link). In fact, Jefferson believed that freed slaves should be exiled from American soil. Failing that, bitterness and animosity between former slaves and their masters loomed large as a troubling thorn-in-the-side. Prudence mandated some form of education be provided to the slaves, to prepare them for free society, just as today's welfare recipients need job training. Loosing masses of previously dependent and oft-abused persons, ill-equipped to fend for themselves, into an already established system, a socially aristocratic environment seemed to Jefferson highly inadvisable. Indeed, in a letter to a former senator from Maine, in 1820, Jefferson wrote, "We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." (Miller, John Chester, The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery)

So, while it would seem an easy matter for us to judge our forefathers harshly for allowing the shameful injustice of slavery to yet remain in a new America, perhaps upon reflection, as we learn more, we will not do so.

ooo

Throughout his adult life, however, Jefferson attempted to abolish or at least limit slavery. In his pre-Revolutionary days, as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1769, Jefferson proposed that all Virginian slaves be emancipated. The House did not see it that way. As the colonies grew nearer to the time of their own emancipation, and prepared to declare such an event, in his first draft of our immortal Declaration of Independence, Jefferson condemned Britain for its practice of importing slaves to American soil. He charged the crown with "wag[ing] cruel war...violating... sacred rights of life and liberty" for their involvements in the slave trade. (Wikipedia, Jefferson and Slavery) . However, that language was eliminated from the final version. (Not by Jefferson, rather southern state delegates.) However, the year 1778 finally saw the importation of new slaves to Virginia banned, a result of Jefferson's efforts in the legislature.

The lands west of the Alleghenies and northwest of the Ohio River were known as the Northwest Territory. "Largely through the efforts of Thomas Jefferson, the States from Massachusetts to Virginia had agreed to relinquish their claims to this land." (The Book of Great American Documents, ed. Vincent Wilson, Jr.) The Continental Congress, now responsible for this area of the country, passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, which, again thanks to Thomas Jefferson, stated, "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude..." in that territory. (Actually, an earlier version of the Ordinance had been drafted, in 1784, and the prohibition of slavery article lost by one vote. That version was never put into effect, and was officially repealed in 1787.)

So we see a vast wilderness area, lands pristine and virgin, untainted with the stain of slavery. We see new beginnings. And in 1807, as President, Thomas Jefferson signed the bill abolishing the slave trade.