Vital Info

Hey, come on in to the Vital Info Page. Christian Bulletin also features Fun Quips, a Ladies Page and a Christian Treatise, where we speak of Christian subjects and even society, culture and other religious and spiritual matters of interest. Come again soon, ya'all.

Christianity, society, religion all relate. Christian Bulletin also talks about the religious bulletin, the spirituality of different people, along with their spiritual condition. Religious people don't mean to be too religious or seem too spiritual. Christian Bulletin includes worship and mention of Baptist churches. God is also mentioned in Christian Bulletin, along with Jesus, Jesus Christ or Christ himself. Psalms and Proverbs, along with the church is spoken of by faith. You must be a Christian by faith in Jesus Christ to enter heaven.

{Please understand that the Christian Bulletin Editor is just giving you the news that is out there, not necessarily endorsing any of it.}

The top ten conservative colleges or universities in the United states are:
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan
Grove City College
Franciscan University
Indiana Wesleyan University
Thomas Aquinas College
College of the Ozarks
Liberty University
Patrick Henry College
Christendom College
Harding University
Honorable Mention

10 Reasons We Like Bush More Than Obama

From Victor Davis Hanson – here is one of them, voted by me as most likely to annoy liberals:

American elites crucified Bush. Vein-bulging Al Gore called him a liar. John Edwards and John Kerry tag-teamed him in vicious attacks. Alfred A. Knopf published a novel imagining his assassination. The Toronto Film Festival gave first prize to “The Death of a President”, a 2006 docudrama about killing President Bush. I could go on again, but you remember the times, in which everyone from John Glen to Garrison Keillor played the Bush Nazi/brownshirt card.

And now? John Edwards imploded in scandal. John Kerry was exposed as a tax-dodging elitist hypocrite. Al Gore, if not a sex poodle, at least is a green-con-artist of the billionaire sort, who both hyped a world-ending crisis and then profited from his rhetorical overkill by selling supposed green snake oil in the fashion of medieval penances. CBS, the New York Times, and Newsweek now totter near financial insolvency, after showing both poor judgment and questionable ethics: from the Times’ offering a discount for the moveon.org “General Betray Us” ad to a Newsweek senior editor declaring Obama a “god.” Suddenly bad things have happened to most of Bush’s loudest critics. (Note I’ll pass on the post-Bush Letterman or the post-Bush Rangel)…

Read the whole thing – and then send it to all your liberal friends.

What to do About RINOs

With the recent defeat of Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, the debate over the fundamental direction of the GOP has heated up. On one side are those who would rather lose a few races on November 2nd rather than keep or install a few more RINOs in to Congress, on the other side are those who say that the pragmatic facts of life are that we must have some RINOs in order to have a majority. Over at Hot Air Allahpundit wades in to this regarding the Castle vs O’Donnel GOP Senate Primary in Delaware.

Allahpundit admits that Castle is a RINO – that he’ll vote against us some of the time, but also asserts that only Castle can win. A vote for TEA Party-backed O’Donnel is, in effect, a vote to keep the seat in liberal Democrat hands. I have to say that I’m less than impressed with the argument.

If we lose the Delaware race then we’ll be replacing an ultra-liberal from a blue State with an ultra-liberal from a blue State. Meaning that if we lose, we’re no worse off than we are now. Additionally, none of us ever thought we had a chance to win the Delaware race, anyway. Getting the seat is not crucial to GOP or conservative long term prospects – it’d be a nice feather in our cap, but our movement doesn’t stand or fall on the Delaware result.

Now, let’s step back for a moment and ask ourselves, what do we want? I mean, as the Republican party and as a conservative movement, what are we trying to accomplish? Getting 51 Senators? Making Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader? Obtaining the chairmanships for our guys? No, that is not what we’re after. What we’re after – if we’re Republicans and conservatives, at all – is a constitutionally governed Republic.

Getting such means getting judges who will rule on the law, not make law. Getting legislators who will do their job, and not leave it to the permanent bureaucracy to work out the legal details of vague, badly-written legislation hastily passed through Congress. Getting our fiscal house in order by eventually balancing the budget and paying off the debt. Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on the American people. Fundamentally curbing the powers of the federal government so that the people and the States will be once again able to run their own affairs. This will, naturally, take a lot of time and effort – and the thing is that in getting to such a place RINOs would continually cut us off at the knees.

When we needed to curb the power of the minority to filibuster judges in the Senate, who stopped us? RINOs. When we needed to stand firm to stop Obama’s stimulus package, who gave way? RINOs. When it comes time to cut spending, who is out there willing to “compromise” with Democrats? RINOs. Always and everywhere, when conservatism – when the principles of Constitutional governance – are swept aside, it is also RINOs who are joining with the other side to defeat us.

I know the theory – better to have someone in office who will vote with us 80% of the time than someone who will vote with us 20% of the time. That would be fine but it is always on the most crucial issues where the RINOs decide its time to show “independence” and break with the GOP. It gets them invited to the nice parties; it gets them glowing write-ups in the MSM; it gets them on the Sunday morning talk shows…its all good, for RINOs. Not so good for the GOP and the United States.

We can already see a bit of what 2011 will be like if the GOP wins a Senate majority – Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Lindsay Graham will try to carve out some sort of “maverick”, independent position (at least in the MSM narrative – they’ll actually be slavishly devoted to the Ruling Class, of course). On the happy morn of our victory, it will be those RINOs who will irk us…who will “reach across the aisle” when its time to confront Obama and his Democrats. We’ll be trying to get them to concede to American Constitutional principle, and here will come our RINOs to completely wreck the program. Why add to our troubles by adding more RINOs? Why even get a Senate majority if it is by grace of RINOs? Better to have a strong, difficult-to-break-a-filibuster minority than be dependent every step of the way on placating people who are just waiting for their chance to throw us under the bus.

2010 is turning out to be a gift for us in the GOP. As recently as a couple months ago, our brightest dreams were of adding two or three GOP Senators. Now there is an outside chance of a GOP majority. But more important than what happens in 2010 for the Senate is the fact that in 2012 and 2014, we have the opportunity to really clean up – in those two cycles a large number of first-term Democrats from red States will be up for re-election. Well-run campaigns from us will allow us to really stock up on conservative Senators…enough, when added to those currently in and those we’re likely to get in 2010, to have a genuine conservative GOP majority in the Senate. Might still need some RINOs for cloture, but we’ll never need them to get a majority vote. If we play our cards right – and if we don’t shove a bunch of additional RINOs in there.

And, finally, we should never concede that liberalism has a place in America. When we say, “well, its a blue State so we’d better RINO-up or we’ll never win” what we’re saying, in effect, is that conservatism is not true and not worthy of support. Either we believe in our conservatism, or we don’t – if we do, then we should be presenting it everywhere. Tactical adjustments can be made depending on where we’re running – deciding on what part of conservatism to emphasize, that is – but we must hold that conservatism can win everywhere…because the truth can win everywhere.

Supposing O’Donnell, winning the nomination, does get clobbered (and, yes, I did read the Standard’s piece on her – she does drift in to some whining kookism..memo to O’Donnell…even if your opponents are rat bastards, don’t complain about it: it looks weak). So, what? Just an incident in the long process of turning Delaware conservative. It is what we must do – hit again and again on conservative ideals in all 50 States until we win the whole ball of wax…until, that is, all political debates are carried out within the framework of conservative ideals, just as when liberalism won it all back in the 1930s, for 40 years we essentially debated only what sort of liberalism to have. Better, at any rate, to fight it out on principle, and lose, than to fight it without principles and merely get a built-in knife in the back.

There is room for a wide variety of views in conservatism. For instance, no one can really question my conservative credentials, and yet I’m opposed to the death penalty and I favor some sort of path to citizenship for at least some illegal aliens. You can be conservative and be a lot of things – but what you can’t be, because we can’t afford it, is a “moderate” who just waits for the chance to go against us when the chips are down. When the crucial “either/or” votes – the votes which define conservatism as being in opposition to liberalism and in favor of a distinctive world view – that is when we must rally ’round. And that is when, precisely, we’ll regret it if we backed RINOs just to get someone with an “R” next to their name in Congress. BlogsForVictory

Disconnect + discontent = déjà vu
Chris Woodward

A sitting congressman is suggesting that current voter discontent may be even stronger than it was when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 mid-term elections.

"Is Washington Listening to America?" That's the title of a recent column written by Republican Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama). "Whether it be from the many polls or studies or public meetings with Congressmen and their constituents, there is strong evidence that Americans don't like what the majority party is doing in Washington," he writes.
 
Aderholt appeared recently on the Today's Issues program on American Family Radio and discussed public reaction to the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership on Capitol Hill.
 
"A lot of Americans have felt over the last several months that there has been a disconnect between Washington over the last couple of years," said the Alabama lawmaker, "but even more so in this past year with the passage of the healthcare bill, the bailout programs, [and] stimulus packages."
 
Aderholt, who voted against all of those measures, explained that the cost of such programs will only add to the increasing national debt. "...We currently owe [$13.3 trillion] and we have to pay interest on that -- and you can imagine what the interest on $13.3 trillion is," he remarked.
 
"It's one thing when a debt has been accumulated that you can some way pay off and see the light at the end of the tunnel," he continued. "But $13.3 trillion is so far in debt that if we don't do something in the immediate, it's going to start snowballing and this country will be indebted forever."
 
As a result, Aderholt stated, there is a growing movement -- specifically by the Tea Party -- to replace many incumbents with new and more fiscally responsible leaders.
 
"I've never seen an atmosphere like this before," he offered. "I was elected in 1996, so I can't really gauge what it was like in 1994. But it seems to be a very similar atmosphere [today] -- and quite honestly, I think it may even be stronger than it was then."
 
Aderholt noted one example recently in Alaska, where Republican incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski was beaten out by Tea Party favorite and Sarah Palin-backed Joe Miller.

ACLU sues FBI, helps 'country's enemies'
Chad Groening

A conservative activist and former presidential candidate thinks the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should be helping national security and law enforcement agencies protect the citizens of the United States instead of aiding the country's enemies.

Several groups, the ACLU among them, recently filed a lawsuit in California against the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an attempt to obtain the release of FBI records on the investigation and surveillance of Muslim communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.

An ACLU spokesperson claimed they wanted information on the FBI's activities in order to assess whether their surveillance activities had a "chilling effect on the right to worship freely or to exercise other forms of expression."  Also of concern to the ACLU are reports of recruiting of Muslim and Arab children to serve in the FBI's Junior Agent Program, and "possible racial and religious profiling," states a press release.

But Gary Bauer, chairman of American Values, thinks a bigger issue is afoot.

"Someone once said that the definition of being a lefty is that you take the side of your country's enemies," he notes. "And some of these people just seem instinctively to want to tear their own country apart.

"I would hope the American Civil Liberties Union would try to find some ways to help defend the United States against this enemy rather than making it harder for security agencies and our law enforcement to do their job."

Bauer feels the ACLU does not seem to care that some people around the world worship death and are feverishly working on other ways to bring sorrow on Americans -- sorrow greater than that experienced on the morning of September 11, 2001.

'Same-sex divorce' revoked
Charlie Butts

A Texas court has reversed a judge's decision to grant a divorce in a case that involves two men.

District Judge Tena Callahan of Dallas granted the divorce to the couple, but the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas has reversed that and returned the case to the lower court with an order to dismiss it.

Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute, the firm that helped the state attorney general's office argue the case, points to Proposition 2, the constitutional amendment passed by 76 percent of Texas voters in 2005 that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"We can't have one judge deciding she doesn't like what millions of people vote and overturning that," Shackelford contends. "So it's important to restore the rule of law, but it's also important because it lays down the very precedents and the very arguments that are eventually going to be at play at the U.S. Supreme Court to defend marriage as between a man and a woman."

He reports that attorneys arguing in favor of the "same-sex divorce" basically presented the same points that were recently used to overturn California's Proposition 8.

"I think it's of crucial importance -- the right to self governance, the fact that the people in this country decide which laws will pass -- and we don't have judges making those decisions for us," the Liberty Institute attorney adds.

He thinks every state has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman and that no judge should be allowed to overturn the will of the people.

Wedlock irrelevant to teens
Charlie Butts

There appears to be a growing acceptance of children being conceived out of wedlock among the nation's youth.

In 2002, 25 percent of teenage males admitted to never having sex, the main reason for abstaining being the possibility of pregnancy. However, the latest figures show that number has dropped to 12 percent. Moreover, more male teenagers agree that it is okay for an unmarried female to have a child. That number rose from 50 percent to 64 percent in 2006-2008.

Jimmy Hester, co-founder of the True Love Waits program, speculates one of the reasons for this growing acceptance.

"A lot of celebrities...are modeling that kind of behavior, and our teenagers and young adults pay a lot of attention to those people; they are role models," he notes. "And so they're seeing that kind of behavior going on, and I think it's just becoming more acceptable for out-of-wedlock pregnancies to take place."

But Hester points out that Deuteronomy 23:2 instructs otherwise, so he thinks now is more important than ever for role models to be in the home and church.

"Parents...church leaders and other student leaders [need] to really hold up the correct behavior and the ideal response to that -- that it's not okay for out-of-wedlock pregnancy," the True Love Waits co-founder contends. "That's just not an appropriate behavior."

He adds that it is imperative for parents to teach their children the right kind of behavior and to be models within the home. That is why True Love Waits is about to launch a program to encourage parental involvement in their children's chastity. OneNewsNow

  gibbons5@cox.net  

               Home | Fun Quips | Vital Info | Ladies | Christian Treatise | e-mail

Copyright 2000 Christian Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.