Thursday evening, the College Republicans of Grand Rapids Community College were blessed and privileged to have Representative Kevin Green on campus to address and encourage us as an organization. It was a remarkable opportunity to get to know Representative Green in a one on one setting.
We spent the evening [obviously] conversing political affairs. The topical issue stressed was our dire economical issues stemming from the leadership in Lansing; and I am not referring to the Republicans.
Often portrayed by the prejudice media, the problems facing our state are often referred to as the “Legislator’s” fault. By employing the term “Legislator” they dumb down the focus of the legislators who are producing the horrific issues threatening our state: the dems.
One such concern confronting our state is one that should honestly frighten you. Green explained that the dems are pushing to change the traditional birth certificate from saying “Mother” and “Father” to “Parent A” and “Parent B.” What, I ask, is happening to the morals in this country? I am speechless. We are in a one state recession and the dems are proposing this? How brainless can they be? Before long, I am sure, that the designated terms of “Mother” and “Father” will be diluted and soon outlawed. The dems need to be stopped and put out of business.
Concluding our meeting, Representative Green left us encouraged and motivated to fight the good fight against the terrorism known as liberalism.
Furthermore, I could not help but be reminded of 2 Timothy 4:7, "I fought the good fight. I finished the race. I kept the faith." We must remember most of all that our focus, faith, and loyalty must be to Christ. By offering Him ourselves, He will direct our paths in ways of righteousness.
Chaz Oswald
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Freedom Fighters
Yesterday in my history class, a guest speaker came to talk about GRCC’s program to study in Ireland for three weeks in the summer. One of the many features of this trip is that we would be allowed exclusive access to the glorious IRA members, even commanders of large “units” who talk to very few people. This was supposedly exciting because these were the people who bravely fought against the diabolical English oppression of the poor helpless Irish.
I was shocked. It took a while for it to truly sink in that we would actually be talking to terrorists and even terrorist leaders. I mentioned this to a classmate afterward, and he said he supports the IRA as he has much Irish pride. I protested that they are terrorists, and he said that they are not terrorists but “freedom fighters”. This reminds me of the relativistic saying “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”. Like most relativistic sayings, this is crap.
I don’t like the term “freedom fighter” because it tends to be applied to terrorists that the liberals want to justify. They are the “good guys” among terrorists. The idea is that they are bravely fighting a just cause to gain “freedom”. Here’s the problem. Butchering civilians with no attempt whatsoever to fight honourably against the actual army is terrorism. Murdering people because they are Protestant, is terrorism. Terrorising the English is obviously terrorism. This was a religious war in which the Catholics were dedicated to the murder of as many Protestants as possible. That is terrorism.
Now some people complain that the English were brutally oppressing the Irish which led them to drastic measures. Frankly I know nothing about the truth or falsity of English oppression of the Irish. It could have been horribly brutal for all I know. What I do know is that this does not affect the tactics that are okay for “freedom fighters” Let us assume for the sake of argument that England was every bit as brutal as they are accused of being. This still does not justify the murder of civilians. The civilians had nothing to do with it. They are not acceptable targets of aggression. Let me give you a hypothetical
Let us assume that I am in Germany under Hitler’s oppression back in the thirties and forties. Hitler is now butchering millions upon millions of people, the total of which will eventually reach 11 million souls murdered. My reaction is to butcher innocent Germans who have nothing to do with Hitler. I have no clue who they are, but they are German and are therefore the enemy, so I blow them up. Am I justified? Of course not. I’m every bit as evil as Hitler is, except that I’m killing on the scale I can rather than the scale that he can. Both are contemptible. Even against Hitler, terrorism is wrong, for it does not target the enemy but rather helpless civilians.
Needless to say, I shall not be going to Ireland to talk with the terrorist dogs
I was shocked. It took a while for it to truly sink in that we would actually be talking to terrorists and even terrorist leaders. I mentioned this to a classmate afterward, and he said he supports the IRA as he has much Irish pride. I protested that they are terrorists, and he said that they are not terrorists but “freedom fighters”. This reminds me of the relativistic saying “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”. Like most relativistic sayings, this is crap.
I don’t like the term “freedom fighter” because it tends to be applied to terrorists that the liberals want to justify. They are the “good guys” among terrorists. The idea is that they are bravely fighting a just cause to gain “freedom”. Here’s the problem. Butchering civilians with no attempt whatsoever to fight honourably against the actual army is terrorism. Murdering people because they are Protestant, is terrorism. Terrorising the English is obviously terrorism. This was a religious war in which the Catholics were dedicated to the murder of as many Protestants as possible. That is terrorism.
Now some people complain that the English were brutally oppressing the Irish which led them to drastic measures. Frankly I know nothing about the truth or falsity of English oppression of the Irish. It could have been horribly brutal for all I know. What I do know is that this does not affect the tactics that are okay for “freedom fighters” Let us assume for the sake of argument that England was every bit as brutal as they are accused of being. This still does not justify the murder of civilians. The civilians had nothing to do with it. They are not acceptable targets of aggression. Let me give you a hypothetical
Let us assume that I am in Germany under Hitler’s oppression back in the thirties and forties. Hitler is now butchering millions upon millions of people, the total of which will eventually reach 11 million souls murdered. My reaction is to butcher innocent Germans who have nothing to do with Hitler. I have no clue who they are, but they are German and are therefore the enemy, so I blow them up. Am I justified? Of course not. I’m every bit as evil as Hitler is, except that I’m killing on the scale I can rather than the scale that he can. Both are contemptible. Even against Hitler, terrorism is wrong, for it does not target the enemy but rather helpless civilians.
Needless to say, I shall not be going to Ireland to talk with the terrorist dogs
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Keven Green at GRCC
Well the title says most of it. State Representative Keven Green shall be speaking today at Grand Rapids Community College. He shall be speaking in the Caukins science center auditorium, which is on the third floor, though if you go in through the back, it's right inside the door. (at the back of the building the third floor is at ground level. How's that for confusing?)
The speech starts at 7:00, so we hope to see you all there!
The speech starts at 7:00, so we hope to see you all there!
Monday, January 21, 2008
In Honour of a Legend
Despite having been labeled a “hypocrite” along with other insults in a recent comment, I shall for the moment let that go and get to the topic on which I wanted to speak today. That’s right, I plan to talk about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. There is much to think on concerning Dr. King, but I would suggest in particular one inspiration and one caution.
The inspiration is the enlightenment Dr. King seemed to possess. He did not want whites to be second class citizens. He wanted equality. He knew that violence would get him nowhere. The disadvantaged had tried rioting quite often before Dr. King’s time and it had gotten them nowhere, so he learned the lesson from their mistakes and kept his ways nonviolent.
I think it took a lot for King to not want to replace white superiority with black superiority. Others in his time wanted to blot out all whites from history. Still others wanted less of a revenge but still some revenge. Dr. King was not after revenge. All of this and more is quite inspiring.
As inspiring as he can be, I would caution that there are some dangers concerning Dr. King. Mainly, he has been made into a liberal idol. He has come not to represent the great ability of blacks, but rather the perceived moral decadence of whites. Never does one hear the story of Dr. King’s heroism without hearing of the evil deeds of the whites of the time. Rarely, if ever, does one hear of the whites who were not bigoted.
Most dangerous of all, Dr. King has come to represent diversity and nothing else. We cannot focus on diversity rather than unity. The diversity of America only makes us great if we are also unified. Otherwise it is merely a weakness, causing division between us. Diversity has destroyed many a nation and it can destroy us as well, if we do not hold onto our core values as a unified whole. Dr. King reached for unity, not diversity. The diversity was already there. Let us learn from him and grasp unity in strong values!
The inspiration is the enlightenment Dr. King seemed to possess. He did not want whites to be second class citizens. He wanted equality. He knew that violence would get him nowhere. The disadvantaged had tried rioting quite often before Dr. King’s time and it had gotten them nowhere, so he learned the lesson from their mistakes and kept his ways nonviolent.
I think it took a lot for King to not want to replace white superiority with black superiority. Others in his time wanted to blot out all whites from history. Still others wanted less of a revenge but still some revenge. Dr. King was not after revenge. All of this and more is quite inspiring.
As inspiring as he can be, I would caution that there are some dangers concerning Dr. King. Mainly, he has been made into a liberal idol. He has come not to represent the great ability of blacks, but rather the perceived moral decadence of whites. Never does one hear the story of Dr. King’s heroism without hearing of the evil deeds of the whites of the time. Rarely, if ever, does one hear of the whites who were not bigoted.
Most dangerous of all, Dr. King has come to represent diversity and nothing else. We cannot focus on diversity rather than unity. The diversity of America only makes us great if we are also unified. Otherwise it is merely a weakness, causing division between us. Diversity has destroyed many a nation and it can destroy us as well, if we do not hold onto our core values as a unified whole. Dr. King reached for unity, not diversity. The diversity was already there. Let us learn from him and grasp unity in strong values!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Faithful Direction
Faith, to many people, plays a significant role within the realm of daily life. Why then should it be different for those surrounded by the public spotlight, let alone those who make moral and ethical decisions for the people they represent? In today’s society, religion and politics cross paths with each other, frequently. Not only has it today, but for centuries of presidential elections, religion has played a role from our founding fathers to today’s political decisions. The United States culture is consumed with denominations and people of many faiths. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, 78.5% of Americans adhere to being Christians. Faith is and should play a vital function for those who plan on becoming and who are voting or employing a public servant.
The term Separation of Church and State is often misinterpreted and implemented by liberal and in turn biased courts with their own selfish agendas. The reason for the misinterpretation is that these judges view our Constitution as a living and changing set of standards that govern our great country. By doing so, they abuse the law set forth by our founding fathers who sought religious freedom not religious restriction. If we review the First Amendment of the United States Constitution we can comprehend the profound meaning by offering an honest elucidation of restrictions on religious freedoms. The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Most court rulings hack the second half of the Free Exercise Clause to judge cases that would favor their political agenda to censor the religious right unjustly. But in context, the First Amendment was composed to protect those of religious faiths by assuring no statewide religion would be imposed, required, or established nationally. It furthermore grants or provides religious peoples with freedom to perform spiritual convictions without constraint. So within the public arena, beginning with our founding fathers, faith has always played a significant role. Why else would our Constitution be dripping with religious freedoms if faith should have no impact in decision making?
As aforementioned our nation has its roots deeply grounded in doctrinal ideals. According to an Oxford graduate and Christian Apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias who so brilliantly states, “It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? .... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.” A person’s religious beliefs trigger where they come from morally and ethically. So within elections, holy assurance or one’s beliefs provide guidance as to which candidate to endorse. And at an equivalent level of conviction, those leaders empowered and chosen must utilize their own faith in resolutions drawn from their desks.
Though a haunting aspect to some, one’s personal convictions and faith in a Creator or Sustainer of Life should be a guiding light not only for those entrusted with power but for those whom assign the duty of representation. From the misconception of the First Amendment to the enlightening words of Dr. Ravi Zacharias, one’s faith must be at the forethought in determining direction of one’s decision. While in the duration of this election cycle, United States citizens will have conflictions on numerous policies. The faithful majority will have conflictions on numerous issues. However, it is our duty to remain unified and preserve our root-not our routes.
Chaz Oswald
The term Separation of Church and State is often misinterpreted and implemented by liberal and in turn biased courts with their own selfish agendas. The reason for the misinterpretation is that these judges view our Constitution as a living and changing set of standards that govern our great country. By doing so, they abuse the law set forth by our founding fathers who sought religious freedom not religious restriction. If we review the First Amendment of the United States Constitution we can comprehend the profound meaning by offering an honest elucidation of restrictions on religious freedoms. The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Most court rulings hack the second half of the Free Exercise Clause to judge cases that would favor their political agenda to censor the religious right unjustly. But in context, the First Amendment was composed to protect those of religious faiths by assuring no statewide religion would be imposed, required, or established nationally. It furthermore grants or provides religious peoples with freedom to perform spiritual convictions without constraint. So within the public arena, beginning with our founding fathers, faith has always played a significant role. Why else would our Constitution be dripping with religious freedoms if faith should have no impact in decision making?
As aforementioned our nation has its roots deeply grounded in doctrinal ideals. According to an Oxford graduate and Christian Apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias who so brilliantly states, “It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? .... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.” A person’s religious beliefs trigger where they come from morally and ethically. So within elections, holy assurance or one’s beliefs provide guidance as to which candidate to endorse. And at an equivalent level of conviction, those leaders empowered and chosen must utilize their own faith in resolutions drawn from their desks.
Though a haunting aspect to some, one’s personal convictions and faith in a Creator or Sustainer of Life should be a guiding light not only for those entrusted with power but for those whom assign the duty of representation. From the misconception of the First Amendment to the enlightening words of Dr. Ravi Zacharias, one’s faith must be at the forethought in determining direction of one’s decision. While in the duration of this election cycle, United States citizens will have conflictions on numerous policies. The faithful majority will have conflictions on numerous issues. However, it is our duty to remain unified and preserve our root-not our routes.
Chaz Oswald
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Michigan Primary
The primary sure has come up quick. Tomorrow, we in Michigan shall be voting to nominate a Republican candidate. I know I will be voting, and I hope all of you will be as well. So long as you know your candidate well. It may be a bit late to advise this but we suggest that you know your candidates well and know what you’re voting for and what you’re not voting for. Hopefully our Gentle Readers have done this by now.
We here among the GRCC College Republicans have many different choices for candidates. I’ve heard a lot of favorites named by many different people. Yet, we have decided not to favour one candidate over another this primary. We will simply be looking forward to the national election and strongly supporting the Republican candidate then. The reason for this is that we do not wish to cause any disunity or division among republicans. We have no desire to attack any republican candidate, as we may end up supporting any of them during the national election.
In other news, we do indeed have a lot of plans for this semester, starting with a speech toward the end of this month and another one in February. We’ll be keeping you posted about events and such during the semester.
We here among the GRCC College Republicans have many different choices for candidates. I’ve heard a lot of favorites named by many different people. Yet, we have decided not to favour one candidate over another this primary. We will simply be looking forward to the national election and strongly supporting the Republican candidate then. The reason for this is that we do not wish to cause any disunity or division among republicans. We have no desire to attack any republican candidate, as we may end up supporting any of them during the national election.
In other news, we do indeed have a lot of plans for this semester, starting with a speech toward the end of this month and another one in February. We’ll be keeping you posted about events and such during the semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
