tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-339933702024-03-07T08:06:43.825-06:00The Bratton ReportSince 2006, bringing you intrepid reportage and opinion on issues of<br> faith, family, and culture from broadcast and stage veteran Mike Bratton<br>
(I know... it makes me laugh every time I read it, too.)Mike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-3005615125921309872010-03-12T07:00:00.003-06:002010-03-12T07:02:54.416-06:00On hiatusThe demands of real life have, for weeks now, put the blogging world on the back burner. On a really low burn, even. If you're a Facebook friend with me, you probably know the narrative.<br /><br />But I'll be picking the posting pace back up soon, Lord willing. Stay strong, effendi.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-31913603389163333102009-11-15T00:47:00.004-06:002009-11-15T01:03:53.175-06:00Obama is now impeachable.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrlDB06BEGNTx8UZOdf6W2jPEicKM4HiXA6YQOFPbd1w7o_kYEJB5G3b6rrq8N7i2sXhEI6bD59UNRjL_9Q-dnoJs9hOmllQs91vvHynuEFoy0C5W-OiloOUjsLI7SGfRxosc9jQ/s1600-h/1007560_f496.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 148px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrlDB06BEGNTx8UZOdf6W2jPEicKM4HiXA6YQOFPbd1w7o_kYEJB5G3b6rrq8N7i2sXhEI6bD59UNRjL_9Q-dnoJs9hOmllQs91vvHynuEFoy0C5W-OiloOUjsLI7SGfRxosc9jQ/s200/1007560_f496.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404222604454966274" /></a><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Let's see if it happens. We can only hope--and pray.<br /><br />More soon.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-70687724229571940332009-09-18T10:39:00.005-05:002009-09-18T14:52:58.299-05:00The Florida premiere of High School "Tolerance"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Wind-up_Bird_Chronicle.jpg/200px-Wind-up_Bird_Chronicle.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 298px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Wind-up_Bird_Chronicle.jpg/200px-Wind-up_Bird_Chronicle.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Such was the <a href="http://tampabay.com/news/education/k12/gulf-high-junior-rejects-literary-masterpiece-over-moral-objections/1036911">puzzlement </a>facing Rafael and Mindy Mercado. Their daughter, Mari, brought home the Haruki Murakami novel <span style="font-style:italic;">The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle</span>. 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.<br /><br />My observations are not focused upon the Pasco County, Florida school system, which correctly <a href="http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/2009/09/gulf-high-ib-student-gets-reprieve-on-book-she-objected-to.html">decided </a>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But I digress.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><blockquote>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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.</blockquote><br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-83627255763190318622009-08-20T12:25:00.004-05:002009-08-20T13:24:26.930-05:00Is Obama "God's partner"?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/us/30obama-600.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 300px;" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/us/30obama-600.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />(Linda Stelter/Birmingham News)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Let that sink in for a moment. "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span style="font-style:italic;">you </span>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"? <br /><br />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"?<br /><br />Ah, if we had some audio. But however you parse it, Barry's perspective is a new low.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-63373379785793732332009-08-01T21:44:00.004-05:002009-08-01T21:50:28.983-05:00A Sgt. Crowley monologue from the upcoming movie "My Beer With Barry."<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/07/2009-07-30APCrowleyObama.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 296px;" src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/07/2009-07-30APCrowleyObama.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>(AP photo/Alex Brandon)<br /><br />(No, there really isn't a movie in the works with that title, but a man can dream, can't he?)<br /><br />"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...<br /><br />"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? <br /><br />"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..."<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-15089400722038626742009-05-06T12:20:00.002-05:002009-05-06T12:35:40.442-05:00It's the National Day of Prayer. Shhh!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01214/Obama-golf_1214027c.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 460px; height: 288px;" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01214/Obama-golf_1214027c.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />FOX News is <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/obamas-decision-observe-prayer-day-privately-draws-public-criticism/">reporting</a> that President Barack Obama has chosen not to hold any public events commemorating the National Day of Prayer, which will be observed tomorrow.<br /><br />This should not be surprising, coming as it does from a non-Christian dictator.<br /><br />However, there is some unsurprising "outrage"--<span style="font-style:italic;">at the outrage</span> 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.<br /><br />He has made it clear by his own <a href="http://thebrattonreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-and-christianity-part-2.html">remarks</a>, 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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Folks, no one's "judging" Barack Obama by saying he isn't a Christian. All we're doing is taking him at his word.<br /><br />And taking God at His.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-72968542825958722212009-04-13T22:30:00.001-05:002009-04-14T00:45:14.123-05:00Accountability can be uncomfortable, for some<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2402626072_a18de91ee2.jpg?v=0"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 175px;" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2402626072_a18de91ee2.jpg?v=0" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Late last week, an individual named Thomas A. Rich was pulled, unwillingly, from the tall grass into the sunshine.<br /><br />He didn't take it well.<br /><br />Rich, as noted <a href="http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-08/story/unmasked_blogger_blames_first_baptist_sheriffs_office">here,</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But where could a group of Christians go to find a template for conflict resolution within their church?<br /><br />Here's an idea--<span style="font-style:italic;">why not try the Bible</span>?<br /><br />Nah, that wasn't for Rich. See, the Bible says that disagreements within a church are just that--disagreements <span style="font-style:italic;">within</span> 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!) <a href="http://thebrattonreport.blogspot.com/2007/07/critical-mass.html">shuttered</a> 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?"<br /><br />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 <span style="font-style:italic;">against </span>taking church issues outside the church, and speaks clearly <span style="font-style:italic;">for </span>voicing one's concerns face-to-face. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />Unfortunately, it is.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />...<br /><br /><i>I will be marvelously surprised if you publish this--nevertheless, I want you to at least read it for yourself. Whoever you are.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Whoever you are.</i><br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-60222634552552506102009-03-29T22:52:00.001-05:002009-03-29T22:54:21.694-05:00Obama 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Barack Obama is a dictator in training.<br /><br />He already has people moving to abolish the 22nd Amendment.<br /><br />He freely admitted, as a candidate, that he was interested in the forced redistribution of wealth.<br /><br />He already has plans to establish "universal voluntary public service" and/or (depending upon which euphemism you prefer) a "civilian national security force."<br /><br />He is nationalizing the banks in which we keep our money, and is nationalizing the care we use for our health.<br /><br />And now, he is able to suggest to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company that he ought to resign, and what happens?<br /><br />He resigns.<br /><br />"Effective immediately."<br /><br />When Rick Wagoner should've asked Obama what branch of the Armed Forces he planned to bring with him to make Wagoner get out. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Effective immediately.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-46714842946653830012009-03-21T12:27:00.002-05:002009-03-21T12:31:39.375-05:00"What do you like about the church?"Watch this.<div><br /></div><div>After you watch it, do what you know you ought to do.</div><div><br /></div><div>--Mike</div><div><br /></div><div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5EyqnwjTw0I&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5EyqnwjTw0I&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></div>Mike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-5540127080934499072009-03-05T08:43:00.002-06:002009-03-05T08:49:05.470-06:00A 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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-64763866508090007012009-02-17T18:14:00.003-06:002009-02-17T18:19:50.090-06:00Hey, I'm famous.I'm prayerfully hoping my career prospects take an upward swing with the publication of this <a href="http://www.allaccess.com/site/features/index.php?bs=sk&sn=10Questions&d=onTheBeach&f=body&ng=jobMarket&ag=171">interview </a>at the radio trade website AllAccess.com. Just click the "Job Market" section and there I am, "On The Beach."<br /><br />And I'd appreciate your prayers in that area, as well.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-80022023566911339412009-01-27T15:13:00.002-06:002009-01-27T15:26:33.884-06:00100-0In 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />Thought I'd check back in with Dallas, and look at the cross section of remarks: <br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />You, whoever you are, miss the point. Winning is fun. Embarrassing the other team just because you can is immoral. There's a difference.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />"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!!!"<br /><br />Addressed this previously, but it bears repeating: This wasn't a war. It was a girls' basketball game. War analogies don't work here.<br /><br />"you have to experience defeat and failure to grow as a person. not everyone deserves a trophy.. not everyone wins in life.."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Kicking your opponents while they're down isn't found anywhere in Scripture.<br /><br />"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?'"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But you keep right on hurling those "big" brickbats from the tall grass, there, TexN. All you're doing is proving my point.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Did your brother step on your neck after he beat you?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Grimes said, "I will walk away with my integrity." <br /><br />In a word: Bull.<br /><br />Grimes left it on the court when he taught his players that people were less important than padded stats.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-79531946327324169462009-01-09T12:35:00.002-06:002009-01-09T13:01:45.944-06:00Going on the recordI'm going to tell you something.<br /><br />Something that might shock you.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I'm carrying around a few extra pounds.<br /><br />And as of yesterday, I began my latest attempt to do something about it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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, über-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.<br /><br />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!"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I'll keep you posted on my progress.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-14125181777214866362008-12-26T15:56:00.002-06:002008-12-26T16:03:47.673-06:00Think I might get in trouble with this one?In case you haven't noticed, the Obama/Biden transition team is using <a href="http://www.change.gov/">www.change.gov</a> as their "official" Internet presence, after <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84464">bum-rushing</a> a milquetoast bureaucracy with the request. I asked them to stop:<br /><blockquote>Please cease and desist the use of the .gov Internet domain immediately. Since there is no "Office of the President-Elect" in the governmental hierarchy of the United States, such misrepresentation as your camp is engaged in is disingenuous. You insult the work of legitimate governmental entities with your presumption.<br /><br />As an indication of maturity, please us a .com, .org, .info, or other generally acceptable domain. It is a deception to identify anything having to do with the Obama administration as "governmental" before his inauguration.</blockquote><br />If you'd like to pass along a similar sentiment, well, you know where to find Barry and Joe.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-61958116520273230342008-12-10T11:32:00.002-06:002008-12-10T11:41:00.624-06:00Here is grace.People who've followed this blog for awhile know that I've aimed it at some awfully graceless attitudes from time to time--with most of those attitudes being held by people who profess to be fellow Christians. But when there is the chance to point at something which is literally "<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/09/this-is-what-patriotism-looks-like/">graceful</a>," it is worth reading.<br /><br />The above link, to Michelle Malkin's column referencing the story of Dong Yun Yoon, holds him up as an example of patriotism. Her praise, however, is far too faint; it is not mere patriotism in action, but grace. I have no way of knowing whether or not Mr. Yoon is a professing Christian, but his example is compelling, whether as a brother in the faith or as a real-life Samaritan whose actions should convict us all.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-35850225459733636062008-11-23T22:46:00.002-06:002008-11-23T23:27:23.664-06:00Rest easy, John MarkEarlier this evening (as in just a couple of minutes ago), I found out that one of the folks who have contributed to this corner of the Internet had passed away. Fellow blogger Keith Solomon has written an eloquent <a href="http://savingbellevue-solomon.blogspot.com/2008/11/passing-of-unlikely-friend.html">article </a>about this gentleman, who participated here primarily under the sobriquet of "John Mark." <br /><br />It is awkward to consider his passing, since we never had the opportunity to meet in person; however, his change in demeanor was a blessing to see. Even at this moment he is completely healed, and experiencing by sight the presence of God which we only know by faith.<br /><br />Please read Keith's article.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-45559931028620655732008-11-14T12:58:00.001-06:002008-11-14T13:01:11.473-06:00Wonk, wonk, wonk.Here's the deal.<br /><br />Having a wonk as President isn't a good idea. Apparently, as if it's a rule of some game, being a wonk means trading off something--like a moral grounding.<br /><br />The last wonk we had was Bill Clinton, and I think the White House cleaning crew is still trying to get some stains out of the Oval Office carpeting. He may have been able to rattle off the names of all manner of foreign dignitaries (and pronounce their names correctly), but Clinton's moral compass was long ago smashed into tiny little pieces.<br /><br />While President Bush hasn't exactly been everything a conservative could've hoped for, he wasn't a wonk. His morality has been solid, and though people may disagree with his conclusions, it cannot be argued that he has arrived at them without a strong moral influence on his decision-making process.<br /><br />Now, the nation is back to a wonk--two, if you include Biden. Oh, yes, Obama can rattle off all sorts of foreign-policy goodies, even though he's only spent hours more in Iraq than Gov. Palin. People like Jon <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/11/13/jon-meacham-snidely-suggests-mccain-considered-offing-unprepared-p">Meacham </a>of Newsweek can perhaps get Chris-esque tingles at the mention of the Lightworker, but even before the election we understood that Obama has no moral rudder.<br /><br />At the end of the day, the Office of the Presidency is one where decisions must be made. Good decisions are made by people with good moral character. <br /><br />With the announcement of planned executive orders from Obama to allow the harvesting of yet-to-be-born children for experimentation, as well as the prohibition of crude-oil exploration, we see that the bad decisions from the latest Wonk-In-Chief have already begun. <br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-80149997339023573142008-10-31T11:22:00.001-05:002008-10-31T11:23:29.027-05:00"Dear Mr. Obama": An eloquent case for McCain<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TG4fe9GlWS8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TG4fe9GlWS8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Couldn't have said it better.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-75504872451513586502008-10-30T08:55:00.003-05:002008-10-30T09:01:26.374-05:00Letter from 2012 in Obama's AmericaThis morning, I came across an interesting news article, regarding Dr. James Dobson's political action group, Focus On The Family Action. It has published a "letter from the future," written from the viewpoint of an individual Christian living in the year 2012.<br /><br />Read it <a href="http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf">here</a>. <br /><br />It is, I fear, more than a bit accurate. If you share that perspective, voting for anyone other than John McCain and Sarah Palin is a remarkably bad idea. And if you don't share that perspective, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-27350724660676789392008-10-24T18:04:00.001-05:002008-10-24T18:05:32.202-05:00Fred Thompson is one optimistic guy.Take a few minutes and watch this.<br /><br />--Mike<br /><br /><embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AdWyHY+MAQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" height="294" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>Mike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-90654135715019386202008-10-21T16:19:00.005-05:002008-10-23T16:15:08.770-05:00More from the Obama cult's Music DepartmentI found this earlier today at BeliefNet.com, and after picking my jaw up off the floor, though it was worth letting you know about it.<br /><br />Familiar with the song "Lord Prepare Me To Be A Sanctuary"? Here we have someone who's done a little lyric surgery, changing "Lord" to "Love." And love for whom, you might ask? Why, the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL">Lightworker </a>himself, Barack Obama. <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/heuHTGDjvqc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/heuHTGDjvqc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />God forbid that enough of Obama's cult followers vote on Tuesday, November 4th to see him become the next President. As I've observed before, and as Joe Biden has <a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/biden-obama-tested-world-months-administration/">promised</a>, an Obama Presidency will be loaded with trouble.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-37545308763534444082008-10-01T08:44:00.007-05:002008-10-04T20:28:26.689-05:00Obama's cult of personality now has a Children's Music department<a href="https://www.singforchange.com/">This</a> is, in a word, disturbing. As is the newest addition to this article--scroll down so you don't miss it.<br /><br />Particularly if you're a parent.<br /><br />(EDITED TO ADD: Here's the video in question.) <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TW9b0xr06qA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TW9b0xr06qA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />(Hat tip to Nikki Shepherd.)<br /><br />Obama supporters are now enlisting children to sing the praises of their Dear Leader. (And I don't use the term lightly.) They have a lovely, innocuous statement on the home page of SingForChange.com--let's examine it together. Quoting thusly, and like so (in italics):<br /><br /><i>Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered</i><br /><br />All on their own, of course. In matching t-shirts. In front of an Obama backdrop. Even the synchronized hand motions were the children's idea. And they just happened to get together in the presence of (as is mentioned elsewhere on their site) "three High Definition cameras (Panasonic HVX250’s)" and an "RED camera set up on a SteadiCam." It's not exactly Andy Hardy putting on a show in a barn, is it?<br /><br /><i>to sing original songs</i><br /><br />Let's pull over and park there for a few minutes.<br /><br />"Original songs?" If you've ever worked around a children's choir of any sort, you know that "original songs" have to be rehearsed. A lot. <br /><br />Here. Examine the lyrics. The first song was allegedly penned by a 9-year-old:<br /><br /><br /><b>WE’RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD<br />Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell<br /><br />We’re gonna spread happiness<br />We’re gonna spread freedom<br />Obama’s gonna change it<br />Obama’s gonna lead ‘em<br /><br />We’re gonna change it<br />And rearrange it<br />We’re gonna change the world.<br /><br /><br />SING FOR CHANGE<br />Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada<br /><br />Now’s the moment, lift each voice to sing<br />Sing with all your heart!<br />For our children, for our families,<br />Nations all joined as one.<br />Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,<br />Courage, justice, hope!<br />Sing together, hold each precious hand,<br />Lifting each other up;<br />Sing for vision, sing for unity,<br />Lifting our hearts to Sing!<br /><br /><br />YES WE CAN<br />Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada<br /><br />Yes we can<br />Lift each other up<br />In peace, in love, in hope<br />Change! Change!</b><br /><br />For the record, Kathy Sawada is the "choir director" in the aforementioned video, and (surprise!) an Obama supporter. But let's continue...<br /><br /><i>in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these non-voting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.</i><br /><br />A 5-year-old wants to sing for the Obama campaign? Really? Now, a 12-year-old responding to Obama propaganda is one thing, but are we seriously supposed to believe that the youngest members of the Dear Leader Singers independently voiced a desire to sing so that Obama might get elected?<br /><br />To be involved in a cult of personality is one of the least rational things I can imagine. I've seen people who do this with this entire Obama nonsense, and I've seen them up close, too, in other venues. Such misplaced worship is, indeed, disturbing.<br /><br />--Mike<br /><br />EDITED TO ADD: Want another example of Obama Youth, particularly since the previously referenced Sing For Change video has mysteriously disappeared? Here you go:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rUEQz5dltmI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rUEQz5dltmI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Mike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-86233780058532088752008-09-26T09:15:00.002-05:002008-09-26T09:28:57.197-05:00Feeling very 21st Century today<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00999/Rocketman-460a_999255c.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00999/Rocketman-460a_999255c.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />One of my great laments in this so-called "modern age" has been the lack of personal jet packs. I have been so saddened by the absence of such devices that, as you may remember, I've taken it <a href="http://thebrattonreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/welcome-to-future.html">personally</a>.<br /><br />But no more. Watch <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7637905.stm">this</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7637905.stm"></a><br />I should be more hopeful.<br /><br />--MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-52778929406829605472008-08-27T11:00:00.002-05:002008-08-29T13:08:06.148-05:00The Vote: Pragmatism, Principle, or Petulance?On Tuesday, November 4th, there will be an election for the American Presidency--and, more importantly, for the future of the nation itself.<br /><br />Looking back on recent history, it is obvious that we as a nation survived the Clinton administration, and are surviving the administration of George W. Bush. With the dark times of the Clinton era and the vacillations of the GWB era as reference points, I believe that the United States would've survived a Kerry administration. Or a Dukakis administration. Or even (and these are frightening words to type) a Gore administration. <br /><br />I do not believe that the United States of America will survive a <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-barackobama-search-swt-ex&gclid=CLn4_cqjrpUCFRdinAodgiy2jg"> Barack Obama </a>administration. That is to say, survive an Obama administration as a representative republic guided by the United States Constitution. <br /><br />Barack Obama is that most dangerous of individuals--a dilettante. Some time at a pseudo-Christian church and, suddenly, he's a theologian. A trip to Europe, and he's a foreign policy expert. Less than six months' actual experience in the U.S. Senate, and he's Presidential.<br /><br />An Obama administration, it is clear, would attack fundamental Constitutional rights, as his recent Second Amendment comments made clear. With his selection of renowned plagiarist (stealing from RFK and Kinnock), bigot (remember "clean" and "articulate"?), and comedian Joe Biden as running mate, Obama has shown that "Change we can believe in" starts with suggesting a denizen of the seamier portions of the Beltway would make a dandy Vice-President. <br /><br />(Yes, I referred to Joe Biden as a "comedian." Don't you remember his favorite joke about Rudy Giuliani? "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence--a noun, and a verb, and 9/11. I mean, there's nothing else." Bah-dum-bump. Get it? Terrorist attacks are punch lines to Biden.)<br /><br />Obama has developed, and is developing, a cult of personality. In the literal, technical sense. Problem is, apart from a TelePrompTer, he doesn't have much personality, or terribly much to say. The nation cannot afford the devastation that will come from giving Barack Obama real political power.<br /><br />But what of <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/landing2/?sid=google&t=newlanding&r=johnmccain">John McCain</a>? As a Christian, I am stopped short by a man who declares he's a Christian, yet specifically insists he is not "born again." Even some non-Christians are familiar with Christ's own words in John 3:7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." No option there. While George W. Bush has erased any theological sophistication we might have hoped for him by suggesting that Islam is a viable religion, McCain has gone a step further. He is as guilty of cherry-picking the Bible as is Barack Obama. <br /><br />Now, I understand that there were many "Christian" moments during McCain's imprisonment in a North Vietnamese P.O.W. camp, but here's the question. If they were transcendent examples of personal faith in Jesus Christ, rather than episodes that were exclusively emotional, would McCain not adhere to the teachings of Christ as revealed in Scripture? <br /><br />McCain attends a Baptist church, yet refused to be baptized by immersion. He considers Islam "honorable." He generally avoids discussing personal faith in Christ, defaulting to mentions of a "higher power" rather than specifically mentioning Christ or Christianity.<br /><br />One of the motivating factors in George W. Bush's election, and re-election, was the notion that Christians could vote for a fellow Christian to serve in the office of President. As with the miserable administration of Jimmy Carter, we have seen that candidates' professions of faith in Christ have failed to consistently translate into solid leadership. But in the 2008 election, neither of the two major-party candidates gives any tangible evidence of being a Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, twice-born child of God. <br /><br />So how should we vote?<br /><br />There are three popular answers. First, there is the notion of "pragmatism"--that we vote for the "lesser of the two evils." Or, more properly, we vote for the major-party candidate whose victory would <em>prevent </em>the less desirable major-party candidate from being elected. Second, there is the notion of "principle"--that we vote for a candidate <em>regardless </em>of that candidate's chances of being elected; this notion opens up the potential of casting votes for individuals such as <a href="http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820">Bob Barr </a>and <a href="http://www.votenader.org/">Ralph Nader</a>. And third, there is what I call (and which works for alliterative purposes) the notion of "petulance"--that we <em>refuse </em>to vote for <em>any </em>candidate who fails to meet a remarkably high standard for the office of the Presidency.<br /><br />For a good while, I have considered that the third option might be the best; after much prayer, thought, and research, I have concluded that the third option is, indeed, petulance. <a href="http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2392">Books </a> are being written that, at face value, suggest that refusing to vote in this election is a reasoned, supposedly Biblical stand. It is the civic equivalent of holding one's breath until one's face turns blue; it mistakenly presumes that there can be, or will be, a "perfect" candidate. <br /><br />It has been widely proclaimed that a vote for John McCain will dilute the Republican Party, and that those who might normally vote Republican should abstain, in the hopes that the party can regroup for the 2012 election. Unfortunately, this is a partisan line of thinking, one as bad as the standard Democrat mindset of "party over country." Realistically, the Republican Party was diluted in 2000 with so-called "compassionate conservatism," in 1996 with "owing" a nomination to an unelectable candidate, and even in 1990 with the abandonment of a no-new-taxes vow. The Republican Party was heavily damaged long before John McCain backed into the nomination, and it is hubris to think that abstention from voting will translate into persuasion of the G.O.P. power structure.<br /><br />Considering a principled vote is not, on its face, a bad idea. That is, until you consider what principle is actually at play. If the goal is influence, then the principle of influencing a vote <em>requires </em>a vote for a presidential candidate with a realistic chance to win an election--providing that candidate doesn't have destroying the country as a chief end. When a principled vote becomes a Quixotic one, then it is ultimately wasted.<br /><br />So what are we left with? Pragmatism? Well, it isn't as though we're <em>left </em>with it, since we never strayed from it in the first place. Votes, as a matter of course, are exercises in pragmatism. We vote on things every day, though perhaps not generally with the import of a vote for President. But we do vote, on everything from clothing choices to commuting routes to what we'll have for lunch. Rarely, if ever, is there a perfect choice in any vote; it is pretense to suggest otherwise. When we vote, we make the best available choice from a given field of possibilities. Why should the vote for President be viewed any differently?<br /><br />The most succinct expression of this line of thought is from radio commentator, author, and cultural activist Janet Folger. With regard to voting for the lesser of two evils, I quote her thusly and like so, "Until Jesus Christ's name appears on the ballot, that's exactly what we do in every vote."<br /><br />Please, when Tuesday, November 4th arrives, do not be petulant. Please do not believe yourself to be voting on principle by wasting your vote's influence. Take the time to make the best choice from the available field. <br /><br />The best available choice is John McCain.<br /><br />--Mike<br /><br />EDITED TO ADD: The addition, on the morning of August 29th, of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate was, simply, brilliant. It makes voting for McCain a much, much easier prospect.Mike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com84tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33993370.post-12174892315215279892008-07-08T09:00:00.000-05:002008-07-08T09:05:13.266-05:00On "canceling a soul"I've recently encountered the online work of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor who also blogs about issues of faith, family, and culture. After reading an <a href="http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/07/03/harrisonabortion/">article </a>of his addressing legal and moral aspects of abortion, I submitted a response that was (I know, not surprisingly) rather involved. At Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion, I am re-posting my response here for discussion, and as a way to recommend his site to you. Quoting thusly, and like so:<br /><br /><br /><br />It is interesting to read the scattered, specious, insubstantial opinions of people who haven’t taken the time to consider the consequences of indulging abortion-on-demand. Before addressing the behavior of Mr. Harrison’s (not “Dr. Harrison,” since he forfeited the use of that title after killing his first child), let’s review some of the boilerplate previously advanced, shall we?<br /><br /><blockquote>1) Okay, I just find this law a little creepy. It isn’t as though women who choose to have an abortion don’t know why they there are there. It seems like a way to shame or scare people off from having abortions - rather than just giving them medical advice. And in what sense is a fetus whole or separate anyway.</blockquote><br /><br />I didn’t realize someone had to be “whole or separate” to be human; apparently, conjoined twins don’t make the grade. Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern, a separate heartbeat, and can even have a separate blood type from his or her mother? <br /><br />And some of the best medical advice one can give a pregnant woman is “Don’t kill your child.”<br /><br /><blockquote>2) Of course most people know that the images associated with abortion aren’t pretty.<br /><br />Neither are images associated with lots of medical procedures.</blockquote><br /><br />Let’s just park there for a moment.<br /><br />Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve? Unless you’re of a mind to define pregnancy as an illness or other deleterious medical condition, the only available answer is “Why, none, Mike.”<br /><br /><blockquote>I think most people would freak if they actually saw the images associated with open heart surgery - but we don’t expose people to that. In short there is no reason to be blatant with the imagery *unless* someone wants to push an anti-abortion agenda.</blockquote><br /><br />Abortionists lie to the women whose children they kill. Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain. To use your example, would you tolerate it if a heart surgeon working on a family member–or on you–lied about the goal of a surgical procedure?<br /><br />Somehow, I doubt it.<br /><br /><blockquote>3) What percentage of abortions does this procedure represent?</blockquote><br /><br />A remarkably small percentage, thanks for asking. But partial-birth abortion is but one tool in the abortionist’s kit. Are you familiar with the standard procedures used in the vast majority of abortions, or do you need details?<br /><br /><blockquote>And given that the original Roe v. Wade decision does give States authority to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, wouldn’t that indicate there was some sort of necessity for this procedure? </blockquote><br /><br />Most state legislatures have been flummoxed by Roe v Wade and every other pro-abortion ruling since. But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?<br /><br /><blockquote>As for the law in question, I think it is just as bad as a law that said doctors have to tell their patients that “God thinks abortion is bad” or “If you vote for a Democrat, innocent children will die.” All of these statements (including the one in question) are based on philosophical or political beliefs not medicine. Medical science does NOT define when life begins (nor do I believe it should). It does define when life ends, but that is more of a legal definition (i.e. when can a doctor legally stop trying to revive or treat a patient).</blockquote><br /><br />It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.<br /><br />Would you say that a developing child eight months past conception is a living human being? Most folks would say “yes.”<br /><br />How about seven months? Six? Five? From what I’ve heard and read, children only 22 weeks post-conception have survived premature delivery, which pushes things back to the five-month area.<br /><br />So how about four months? Are you interested in saying that a child who’s a human being at five months’ gestation wasn’t a human being at four? Or at three? If we keep dialing back, developing children have a discernable heartbeat at roughly three weeks’ gestation, and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks. <br /><br />Even before this time, from the moment of conception, the developing human being is just that–developing, and with unique, and uniquely human, genetic information. Common sense will tell you that life begins at conception, if you’ll just employ it.<br /><br /><blockquote>4) Perhaps we should get into a discussion about what abortion was like BEFORE it was legalized - would images of coathangers and the loss of the life of not only the child but the mother be better?</blockquote><br /><br />Ah, one of the best red herrings of them all. But read your own words: You define abortion as “the loss of the life of… the child”. Please ask yourself why you’re limiting your own argument to the choice between one death or two, when you could be considering scenarios where no one dies!<br /><br /><blockquote>I see abortion as one of those necessary evils.</blockquote><br /><br />What other “evils” are “necessary”? I’ve never encountered even one, so I’d appreciate hearing why any sort of out-and-out evil is ever necessary.<br /><br /><blockquote>I don’t agree with it, I stand opposed to it, but I will not force my particular belief onto someone else by voting for legislation that tries to make it illegal.</blockquote><br /><br />Then you are actively engaged in cognitive dissonance. If you say you believe a thing to be wrong, but you refuse to enter the arena of ideas and contend for the advancement of what you say you believe, you do not have a belief, but rather a lukewarm opinion that brings you comfort.<br /><br /><blockquote>I think there needs to be limits to its use and that we should use eduction (sic) as one of our best weapons to lessen its occurrence. I do not, however agree that the world would be “better” if it weren’t legalized.</blockquote><br /><br />Millions of children have been murdered by people pretending to be doctors. It has been facilitated by politicians and judges with no substantive morality, and pursued by women (and the men who aid them) who range from the brainwashed to the hedonist. How is the world a better place by indulging the slaughter of fifty million children in the United States alone?<br /><br /><blockquote>Bill Clinton, for all his faults, had a great quote that I use often: “Abortion ought to be safe, legal and RARE”.</blockquote><br /><br />“Faults”? Bill Clinton is a diabolical individual; you would do well to never consider anything he says to be “great.” But what inspires you to think his quote is even something he believed? What did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ever do to make abortion-on-demand more rare? Anything?<br /><br />Here’s an even better quote for your mantelpiece: “We must champion the innocent and the defenseless; there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable, than the child yet to be born.”<br /><br />Now as for Mr. Harrison (and I use the “Mr.” loosely), it is evident from his statements that the psychological strain of killing approximately 20,000 children has taken its toll. If he frequents a church that at all preaches the Christian Gospel, he cannot help but be aware of (even if he will not admit it) the ramifications of willfully, freely violating God’s own standards by murdering child after child over the years, much less the ramifications of rejecting the call of God to repentance and faith in Christ. <br /><br />While those of us who are Christians should pray for his salvation, we must not allow ourselves to be surprised when a man who indiscriminately takes life makes statements that are non sequiturs.<br /><br />Dr. Throckmorton, you are being generous in your statements considering what Harrison has said. He will not entertain the notion that one of the 20,000 he has killed could have been anything other than an anguished, tortured human being with no chance of redemption; were he to do so, he would face being personally convicted of the crimes against God and humanity he has enthusiastically committed.<br /><br />–MikeMike Brattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13145152348285384619noreply@blogger.com232