Sunday, November 15, 2009

Obama is now impeachable.


I will explore this in depth in my next article, but here's the crux of the matter: Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists in a U.S. court of law, rather than dealing with them through military channels as enemy combatants, is giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America.

In case that phrase, "aid and comfort," didn't ring a bell, that's a definition of treason. Since the Obama Administration has directed this travesty, the blame lies not only with Attorney General Eric Holder, but primarily with President Barack Obama. And Obama's treason is more than sufficient reason to impeach him.

Let's see if it happens. We can only hope--and pray.

More soon.

--Mike

Friday, September 18, 2009

The Florida premiere of High School "Tolerance"

Imagine you're a parent, if you aren't one already. Let's say your teenage child comes home from school and cracks open the latest reading assignment--for the enriched class, mind you. After grinding away at the new novel, your child slaps the book closed, drops it like it's radioactive, and says you might want to take a look at the "gross pages" in this book, one which is required reading, mind you.

After perusing the passage in question, and agreeing with your child about the aforementioned grossness, what would you do? Scratch your head, say it's required reading, and then return to whipping up some dinner? Or do you tell your child that just because you get an assignment, it doesn't mean you have to do it against your will and your beliefs?

Such was the puzzlement facing Rafael and Mindy Mercado. Their daughter, Mari, brought home the Haruki Murakami novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. This isn't a book for teenagers, or for anyone with high literary standards; it has a disjointed plot, characters with whom one cannot connect, and episodes of lubricious exhibitionism. However, it's won some awards, so there are plenty of people who will automatically assume it's wonderful reading, even for younger readers. For them, it's inappropriate, mind you.

My observations are not focused upon the Pasco County, Florida school system, which correctly decided to give young Miss Mercado something else to read, but on those who feel it's their civic duty to respond (without standing behind their responses, mind you) by attacking the Mercado family's very moral request.

This brings me to why I've been saying "mind you" so annoyingly much in this little missive. Much of the attacks (as is typical of much Internet-comment bile, if not most) were unsigned, toss-it-from-the-bushes nonsense. They attacked the student and her parents, rather than taking the time to focus on the issues raised. According to them, this student and her family are: Pathetic, sad, uninformed, spoiled, immature, closed-minded, and hypocritical (because they read the Bible, which is supposed to be "[f]ull of child abuse, kidnapping, murder, psychological and physical torture and incest"). And those are just some of the highlights. These were comments made without the use of developed minds; comments made with only the input of quivering, gelatinous emotions. Use your minds, people, particularly when you insist yours are so very well-developed.

But I digress.

As you might know, such brickbat-hurling is endlessly fascinating to me. So, I had to respond--and if the pattern holds, some of those brickbats will come flying in this direction. Which is, also, endlessly fascinating. My response to them, quoted thusly and like so:

Interesting to see so many hate-mongers coming out (or, generally, hiding behind first-name-only signatures and pseudonyms) to attack a young lady whose life has a solid moral foundation.

The "tolerant class" preaches capital-t Tolerance morning, noon, and night--as long as they're not required to be tolerant of those who disagree with them. Of course, nowadays "tolerance" is popularly defined by such people as "live your own life, but don't even make me think I'm not making a perfect choice with my life." You might have noticed that Miss Mercado and her father didn't try to inflict their beliefs upon the entire program, but rather asked for (and received) an alternate assignment. Unfortunately, the request suggested that students who read the book in question shouldn't have done so. And we can't have that, can we?

Freedom, boys and girls, carries with it responsibility. Miss Mercado, rather than mindlessly following the status quo, acted responsibly; some, mindlessly, attacked her for it.

Because of her moral foundation, this episode won't be the last time she'll weather such knee-jerk opposition--and that is probably the best lesson she'll learn this semester.


--Mike

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Is Obama "God's partner"?


(Linda Stelter/Birmingham News)

Yesterday, American dictator Barack Obama had a conference call with a group of roughly 1000 Jewish religious leaders, during which he made an astounding statement--one that was astounding, in its narcissism, even for the new dictator Obama.

In addressing the rabbis on health care, Obama the Usurper was quoted by Rabbi Jack Moline as saying this (I quote thusly, and like so): "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Let that sink in for a moment. "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Keep in mind that ol' Barry thinks it's a fine idea to kill developing children--even via the barbarism of partial-birth abortion. Remember that Barry believes the "bitter" cling to "guns and religion," can't find a church with which to affiliate, spent decades listening to the rants of a cult preacher of ethnocentric liberation theology, and couldn't be bothered with the National Day of Prayer.

Oh, and be certain to remember that Barry is a faux Christian. He uses the faith as a prop, opining that there are "many paths" to a right relationship with God, discounting Jesus' own pronouncement that "no man comes to the Father but by Me." And now, Barry is trying to use others' beliefs as a prop, attempting to convince Jewish rabbis (all of whom should read Obama the riot act for his anti-Israel, pro-terrorism attitude toward the Middle East) that they should get on board with Obama's desire to nationalize health care.

This same Obama--the Lightworker, the Usurper, the first American dictator--believes himself to be "God's partner" in "matters of life and death." "But he said 'we,' Mike!" Now, last I checked, the word "we" means "you and me." Do you believe yourself to be God's equal? No? Then that "we" is actually "I," correct? Indeed, you might have heard of the Royal We, as in "We are not amused." That's what Barry was saying: We are not amused that you haven't rolled over and accepted rampaging socialism, so we must remind you that we are God's partners in matters of life and death, and we must be accorded the accompanying deference.

Those of us who are Christians are described in many ways. We are children of God, joint-heirs with Christ, servants, and such. We are not characterized as God's "partners," ever. God has no partners; He has followers, but He does not share the limelight, the responsibility, or the throne with anyone else.

One thing to consider, though--these words were spoken, not printed initially. Perhaps Obama was referring to another being? Should we take his words as being "we are god's partners in matters of life and death"?

Or (and this would make more sense, knowing Obama's narcissism and the advancement of the Obama cult of personality) "we are gods, partners in matters of life and death"?

Ah, if we had some audio. But however you parse it, Barry's perspective is a new low.

--Mike

Saturday, August 01, 2009

A Sgt. Crowley monologue from the upcoming movie "My Beer With Barry."

(AP photo/Alex Brandon)

(No, there really isn't a movie in the works with that title, but a man can dream, can't he?)

"With all due respect, Barry, here's the thing... Oh, did that bother you, me not calling you Mister President and all? That get under your thin skin, so that's why you're eyeballing me? Yeah, well, I'm not big on even giving lip service to people who lie their way into the Presidency, then turn around and make a power grab that would make Hugo Chavez blush. But I digress...

"See, Barry, here's the thing... You're an idiot. You've never worn a uniform, either military or law enforcement, yet you have the sand to call my fellow officers and me stupid? You can't even pay your parking tickets, jerk. The only reason I'm here at this juvenile P.R. stunt of yours is so that I could tell you to your face that out of a class of 44 people who've been able to say they were President of this country, you're the worst. You're the only one who flat lied his way into office, you're setting yourself up as a dictator, and if you keep pushing, one way or another you're gonna get thrown out on your oversized ear. Oh, sensitive about that, too?

"You better remember this, Barry. The only thing you can do right now, with all those telephoto lenses trained on us, is smile and nod. You can't frown, can't look down your nose at me, can't even say anything that lip readers could pick up on. People aren't watching me, they're watching how a bigot like you has to backpedal when the racism jumps out of his mouth. And if you mess with me and mine, those FOX News types you hate so much are gonna come down on your so hard that the rest of the press will have to say something, too. You keep your bigoted nose out of Cambridge, Barry. Think that plumber gave you fits? With all due respect, Barry, you ain't seen nothin' yet..."

--Mike

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

It's the National Day of Prayer. Shhh!


FOX News is reporting that President Barack Obama has chosen not to hold any public events commemorating the National Day of Prayer, which will be observed tomorrow.

This should not be surprising, coming as it does from a non-Christian dictator.

However, there is some unsurprising "outrage"--at the outrage surrounding the announcement. Some of this will wind up in the Comments section of the above-referenced FOX News online article, but I hope you understand this: It is not "judging" to understand that Barack Obama is not a Christian.

He has made it clear by his own remarks, including what he said in 2004 to Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times. Quoting Obama thusly, and like so: "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

In a nutshell, not only is that a non-Christian belief, Obama's is an anti-Christian belief. For those not familiar with a foundational truth of the Christian faith, Jesus made this declaration about Himself, quoted in John 14:6, where He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Belief in "many paths" says that Jesus was a liar. Since He was not, the only available option is that Obama is a flat-our liar for claiming to be a Christian while holding an anti-Christian belief.

Consequently, it should not be surprising to find that Obama will be "privately" observing the National Day of Prayer, which is to say he won't be personally observing it at all.

And Welton Gaddy's comments supporting Obama carry precisely no weight. As an Air American radio host and president of the oxymoronically-named Interfaith Alliance, Gaddy preaches syncretism over and above the Christian Gospel message. However, when he says that "Shirley Dobson's Task Force is not the spiritual judge of the president's personal or official actions," he is correct; God is Obama's ultimate and only Judge in all things, and He has already made it clear in Scripture that Obama's "many paths" nonsense is anti-Christian. That's something Gaddy should take under advisement.

Folks, no one's "judging" Barack Obama by saying he isn't a Christian. All we're doing is taking him at his word.

And taking God at His.

--Mike

Monday, April 13, 2009

Accountability can be uncomfortable, for some


Late last week, an individual named Thomas A. Rich was pulled, unwillingly, from the tall grass into the sunshine.

He didn't take it well.

Rich, as noted here, has invested a great deal of time and effort since mid-2007 in attacking First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, and specifically her pastor, Mac Brunson.

To read Rich's side of things, he had "concerns." Were they justified? From what I know of the situation, some were very justified--so much that there might actually be a conflict within that church, one in need of resolution.

But where could a group of Christians go to find a template for conflict resolution within their church?

Here's an idea--why not try the Bible?

Nah, that wasn't for Rich. See, the Bible says that disagreements within a church are just that--disagreements within a church, and not for public consumption. As a matter of fact, with regard to FBC Jacksonville, another blogger who violated the Biblical template actually (gasp!) shuttered that blog. But Rich was determined to hide in the tall grass. In his own words, "I preferred to blog anonymously so as not to draw attention to myself, or make the discussion about me personally." With regard to Rich's success in that area, I quote the noted philosopher Ben Linus, who poignantly asked, "And how did that work out for everyone?"

Rich appeals to law when it suits him, insisting he has a Constitutional right to blog anonymously; the bottom line is this: He does, indeed, have one. The only problem is that when Rich makes his appeal a Constitutional one, he is preferring it to a Biblical appeal. Why? Simple--because the Bible speaks clearly against taking church issues outside the church, and speaks clearly for voicing one's concerns face-to-face.

As these events were happening in Florida, a great friend of mine told me of what was happening in my hometown of Memphis, with regard to fellow travelers of Rich's whose target is my long-time home church, Bellevue Baptist. My friend told me that while the anti-Bellevue propaganda has lost all but a sliver of its audience, a number of those who agitated at Bellevue have migrated from that church, only to descend upon another marvelous Memphis-area church, Germantown Baptist, and are agitating against that church's pastor.

Since some of those are no doubt caught up in what can only be called the oxymoronically-named "New BBC Open Forum," I reluctantly paid a visit there to see if their output was still set to "Bile."

Unfortunately, it is.

With the FBC Jacksonville blog in mind, I sent them this post. Since it was rejected (not surprisingly) there, I'll publish it here, in the hope that some of their participants will take it under advisement.

...

I will be marvelously surprised if you publish this--nevertheless, I want you to at least read it for yourself. Whoever you are.

Many of us have prayed for you for years; it is disappointing, frankly, to hear of this most recent response to some much-needed accountability for people such as your own selves, the "anti" folks who inhabit church pews.

If you really, honestly, seriously need Biblical instruction as to why there were Bible-based problems with the so-called "Watchdog" (and of you and your little kaffeeklatsch of anonymous nay-sayers), visit 2 Samuel 12. Then, let us know how Nathan used a pseudonym when he honestly wanted to confront David with his sin.

After you digest that bit of Scripture, move to the main course. The Biblical template for conflict resolution hinges on the testimony of witnesses, face to face, rather than whispers from the shadows (unless you think it'll raise your standing to attack fellow church members in public, in which case you'll sign your name to pretty much anything, regardless of its veracity).

And in case it escapes you, Jesus Himself articulated that template in Matthew 18. First, talk with the person individually; then, take someone with you; then, address the church as a whole.

Both Testaments reinforce the standard of face-to-face delivery of accusations and/or concerns. You and yours have treated that Biblical mandate as so much fertilizer--and yet you're (gasp!) shocked when someone else who uses your tactic actually has to come out from the shadows?

It is unfortunate that your collective mindset is stunted and immature. You do wrong, then wail to the heavens when there's a possibility you might be held accountable for treating God's Word with utter, habitual contempt.

Indeed, there has been no development or maturity in your anti-Bellevue dialectic; looking back, I warned you and yours of the problems with indulging your anger nearly two and a half years ago. You folks let this be a place where hate, character assaults, and even death threats were not only unchallenged, but indulged--and yet you seem surprised to find that such things have consequences. You have demonstrated the underlying truth of the quote I presented to you way back then, a quote from one of my favorite philosophers.

Quoting him thusly, and like so: "I think, when one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. Then it becomes comfortable, like old leather. And finally, it is so familiar one can't remember feeling any other way. But in the long run, we are the ones who are damaged by that kind of behavior. We are. Not them."

You became comfortable in your sin. When it appeared you might be held accountable for it, you were apoplectic; your comfort had been disturbed. The only people you've damaged by your actions are your own selves.

Whoever you are.


--Mike

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Obama forces GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign... Here Comes The Regime...

A few years ago, I can remember being mocked by more than a few liberals for referring to Hugo Chavez as a "dictator in training." Turns out that such a call wasn't off-base, after all.

In case there were any people who doubted that the Lightworker had unseemly aspirations for both himself and the United States, today's little bombshell put us well past any point of reasonable doubt.

Barack Obama is a dictator in training.

He already has people moving to abolish the 22nd Amendment.

He freely admitted, as a candidate, that he was interested in the forced redistribution of wealth.

He already has plans to establish "universal voluntary public service" and/or (depending upon which euphemism you prefer) a "civilian national security force."

He is nationalizing the banks in which we keep our money, and is nationalizing the care we use for our health.

And now, he is able to suggest to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company that he ought to resign, and what happens?

He resigns.

"Effective immediately."

When Rick Wagoner should've asked Obama what branch of the Armed Forces he planned to bring with him to make Wagoner get out.

If you don't have a Tea Party near you in which to participate on April 15th, or thereabouts, start one yourself. The country has seen enough of President Barack Obama, and it's time he followed Rick Wagoner's lead.

Effective immediately.

--Mike

Saturday, March 21, 2009

"What do you like about the church?"

Watch this.


After you watch it, do what you know you ought to do.

--Mike


Thursday, March 05, 2009

A word from my daughter.

Awhile back, my little girl felt like writing about an experience she'd had, one that taught her an important lesson. Let me share it with you, thusly and like so.

I broke my arm a few weeks ago. But my dad didn't believe me because I wasn't always truthful to my word. I was playing basketball. We were playing 3 on 3. And I was about to grab the ball, but instead I fell and popped my arm on the floor. I went to school as regular the next day. I went to the school nurse during class and she wanted me to get it X-rayed. When Dr. Wolf was finished with the X-ray he came into my room and said "It's a small fracture." I was freaked out. I almost screamed. They took me into a room where they wrapped my arm in a soft gauze. Then they put some thing on me that immobilized my arm. Then they wrapped my arm in two ace bandages. I went to the doctor's office the next week and they unwrapped my arm and said it was doing fine. Sometimes the doctor might be wrong. Jesus is never wrong. Jesus will sometimes let the devil attack us, to see how we react. But Jesus never makes mistakes.


--Mike

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Hey, I'm famous.

I'm prayerfully hoping my career prospects take an upward swing with the publication of this interview at the radio trade website AllAccess.com. Just click the "Job Market" section and there I am, "On The Beach."

And I'd appreciate your prayers in that area, as well.

--Mike

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

100-0

In my reading, I enjoy perusing local newspapers' websites, particularly on stories of national interest. When I took a look at what the Dallas Morning News had to say about the now-infamous 100-0 final score of a recent game between The Covenant School of Dallas and Dallas Academy, it was fascinating reading--particularly the comments after the article. So fascinating, in fact, that I had to respond.

It is a real eye-opener to see that, even in other parts of the country, a large number of people see nothing wrong with a group of young girls embarrassing a group of other young girls at the behest of their coach, a fellow named Micah Grimes. Thankfully, he's now the former girls' basketball coach at The Covenant School, but he has his supporters. And they act in ways which are, unfortunately, quite predictable. Personal attacks, avoidance of the issues... If you're a long-time reader of this blog, you've seen the conduct documented in other discussions. But I thought I'd share some of what's going on in Dallas, as well of more of my observations on the subject matter. What follows is the text of my most recent post to the dallasnews.com website.


Thought I'd check back in with Dallas, and look at the cross section of remarks:

"Mike Bratton you are what is wrong with America today. what is with the "hive" mentality in this nation??? when did it become uncool to do your best and WIN?"

You, whoever you are, miss the point. Winning is fun. Embarrassing the other team just because you can is immoral. There's a difference.

(Oh, and for the record, one of the things that really is wrong with this country is the proliferation of people who say bellicose, outlandish things from the comfort of anonymity. As a former pastor of mine used to observe, if you can't sign your remarks, they aren't worth anything.)

"Lets just leave Iraq and Afghanistan.. the other team can't compete with us.. if we had this mentality in WWII we would not have won!!!"

Addressed this previously, but it bears repeating: This wasn't a war. It was a girls' basketball game. War analogies don't work here.

"you have to experience defeat and failure to grow as a person. not everyone deserves a trophy.. not everyone wins in life.."

The girls who were on the losing end of this game seem to be handling it well, from what we're told. If you had read closely, my concern is for the girls who won. They've been taught to step on the necks of their competition, not just to be their best.

Kicking your opponents while they're down isn't found anywhere in Scripture.

"Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins according to what is taught by Covenant. By His example, we learn so much. What would they be teaching if someone stepped in and altered the course of His Divine Will because he had 'had enough?'"

Wow, talk about an irrational response. It's not enough to compare a girls' basketball game to a war--now someone wants to compare a girls' basketball game to Jesus' sacrificial death at Calvary?

"What if they had held the ball the entire second half? Would that be showing Christian compassion, or would the coach still have lost his job due to the fact that the other team still didn't get to shoot the ball."

What was "ridiculous" was allowing (or coaching?) your players to shoot threes in the second half of a stone-cold blowout. Grimes could've easily talked with the opposing coach at halftime, and either called the game or found some other equitable solution.

"BostonGuy, how funny that you know what that entire USA thinks. The discussion on Sports Illustrated's 'For the Record' would completely disagree with you...sports fans around the nation disagree with you."

While I am familiar with the notion of "the wisdom of crowds," the issue here is one of morality--and "the morality of crowds" is something rarely worth following.

But you keep right on hurling those "big" brickbats from the tall grass, there, TexN. All you're doing is proving my point.

"As a young sibling of a very talented and athletic brother, I lost most of my competitions with him, but it made me strong and tougher."

Did your brother step on your neck after he beat you?

"I asked all the induviduals who thought some compassion should have been shown a question... and that was 'what should they have done?' but nobody has answered that question. I'm not here to argue or sound stupid, I am just curious to know what others think should have been done, so that I can look it up in my book and see if it is considered cheating by my standards."

Then let me answer it again. Grimes, had he not been evidently myopic, could have spoken to the opposing coach at halftime and come to an equitable resolution for both teams.

And to be honest, your subjective standards aren't really part of the issue. Objective issues of right and wrong, of immorality and morality, of integrity and dishonor--those are the issues on the table.

Grimes said, "I will walk away with my integrity."

In a word: Bull.

Grimes left it on the court when he taught his players that people were less important than padded stats.

--Mike

Friday, January 09, 2009

Going on the record

I'm going to tell you something.

Something that might shock you.

Believe it or not, I'm carrying around a few extra pounds.

And as of yesterday, I began my latest attempt to do something about it.

This time around, I'm going the doctor-supervised route, which makes sense for me. The injection and supplement regimen, plus the weekly check-in, look to be a way to seriously address this issue, which has steadily, sneakily worsened over the past two decades. For those who know me well, that's roughly the time I got into the very sedentary business of radio.

We have a new basketball hoop, which will give me the goal (pardon the pun) of getting back to slam-dunking. I still have friends who are in a permanent state of disbelief about that, but in my lithe, ├╝ber-athletic youth and early adulthood, my elevation was very good. Just like my kung fu. But I digress. By my next birthday, I expect to be able to elevate well enough to at least pull off a one-handed slam. Hey, it's a... target.

To be serious for a moment: There comes, I believe, a tipping point for people in addressing issues such as weight loss. Mine was a recent one, weeks ago, when I began to develop, for lack of a better term, a "perception" about myself. Now, while tall is fine, I've been big-and-tall for quite awhile, to my embarrassment. Recently, it became more than just embarrassing; I began to develop the sense that I was wearing one of those "fat suits" popularized by folks like Tyra Banks on her television show, and by Mike Myers in his "Austin Powers" movies with the character of Fat... well, I can't really say his name, but the character coined one of my favorite phrases, "Get in mah belly!"

So far, today, I've had a granola bar and a banana. Two hundred and sixty-five total calories taken in today. And I'm not hungry. It's an encouraging start.

I'll keep you posted on my progress.

--Mike