iPandora

She was smart, beautiful and funny, and most of all, she loved God.

February 11, 2007: Sunday morning I walked into Sunday School with the other Young Adults at Brainard Avenue Baptist Church. It was my second week back after being gone just over two years in California.

I had met the church and felt at home and accepted and appreciated back in 2003, and with that knew that I was to relocate at least for a while to Chicago after spending a few more years at home. After spending just over 2 years back in California, I returned to Chicago at the end of January 2007 and thanks to the generosity of friends church family in the area I was putting down roots.

Little did I know where those roots would grow and how my life was to change. Soon.

Back to that Sunday, February 11th. In my visits back to Chicago while living in California, I’d met some new members of the Sunday School class, students at Moody Bible Institute who were able to drive out to the suburbs for Sunday services at Brainard. It was good to see these people again in addition to the regulars and long-timers.

The Moody students had brought friends this Sunday. One young lady, in her first semester at Moody, had been searching for a church she could feel at home at while attending school, had taken advantage of her friend’s extra car seats, and was visiting the church for the first time.

The quiet, beautiful girl did not return for a few weeks.

When she did visit Brainard again, I made a point of talking with her for a few minutes. Making her feel welcome, I told myself.

It began as a friendship, nothing special. But I quickly moved beyond an average interest in her.

This was a Godly woman, beautiful, caring, very loving. All that attracted me very intensely. I had to get to know her better.

And so I did. Grace visited family in Washington for spring break. I missed her those weeks she did not come to Brainard.

I had offered to drive students to church from Moody when they needed extra seats, and one beautiful spring day they took me up on the offer. Three students needed a ride and so I went out early Sunday morning to pick them up. Due to the beautiful weather, the two others decided they were going to ride a motorcycle out to church that day, leaving Grace to ride with me by herself. She was not exactly comfortable with this situation at the outset, being alone in a car with some guy she hardly knew. But it was that or miss church, and I’d already driven out, so to not make a scene, she got in the car.

We began talking and found we had similar standards and backgrounds, and we both liked country music.

That afternoon several of us spent the afternoon at my apartment eating lunch, playing games, listening to music, relaxing. Grace and I continued to talk and get to know each other. I drove her back to school too, and said goodbye.

Over that spring the associate pastor and his wife invited several college students over for extended times of fun and fellowship, watching movies and entertaining their young boys. Grace was able to take some time off studying to attend one of these, so I volunteered to pick her up from school and bring her out to the suburbs so she could spend time with us.

The other Moody students had come out earlier in the day and so again I was able to spend time just with Grace, getting to know her better.

We also spent a Saturday helping some other students move to an apartment off campus. While there were others around, I sought out Grace and helped her and asked her to help me in specific tasks. I was twitterpated. And I believe she knew I was possibly interested in more than friendship.

Our friendship continued to grow and as the semester drew to a close I was trying to decide if I should ask her if we could move into a potentially romantic relationship or talk to her dad first. Various things led me to decide to speak with her dad first, but as I drove her and a mutual friend to the airport that morning in early May I bit my tongue.

Our parting was awkward as our relationship was possibly changing and yet neither of us had mentioned it to each other. We parted with an awkward side hug and I drove to work while she winged her way home to Dallas.

Earlier in the semester she had given me her cell phone number but had informed me her phone was broken and so I had not called her. As she left for the summer, she left a few boxes of things which would not fit in the summer storage at Moody which I was to take to the associate pastor’s house for storage. The boxes had her home address.

I spent the weekend visiting friends in Louisville, Kentucky and trying to work up the courage to call her or her dad. I still wasn’t very sure of her interest in me and I feared rejection. So I decided to try and talk with her one more time, just to gauge her possible interest.

Leaving Louisville late Sunday afternoon for the long drive back to Chicago, I called her. I’d used the address on her boxes to look up her home phone number in the phone book online. And now the phone was ringing.

Her mother answered.

“Can I speak with Grace, please? This is Matthew, a friend from Chicago.”

The phone call and the trip went quickly, all 4 hours of both. And I had my answer. We still had not talked specifically of our relationship, but I knew that if it was that easy for both of us to spend 4 hours talking and with similarities between us in standards and beliefs, I knew I wanted to pursue this lady.

The next day I called her dad. I spoke to him on Tuesday and asked if I could begin courting his daughter.

Over the next few weeks he asked me questions regarding my views and opinions on various matters and eventually told me he and his wife would allow me to court Grace.

I was planning a trip down to Missouri by then to see her for a weekend. She was working at Child Evangelism Fellowship’s headquarters outside St. Louis.

June 15th, 2007: The Friday before I drove down to see her, when we were having what by then was a regular evening phone call, I told her I’d been talking to her parents about courting her (she knew that already) and I asked her if she was willing to court me.

She said yes.

Over the summer she traveled to New York to work with children in the projects and other parts of the city, returning to Missouri and then Dallas in August, where I spent a week meeting her family and friends and having fun together.

We flew back to Chicago together: her to begin classes and me to get back to work.

Through the semester and now these months together I grew to appreciate more and more her strength, her tenacious love, her sense of direction and purpose, and her Godliness. Not to mention her beauty and her spirit, her consistency and organization. I knew rather quickly that she was definitely the one I wanted to marry.

Apparently she knew too.

After a winter trip to California meeting my family and friends and receiving further counsel from my parents, I began seriously considering marriage to this wonderful woman God had brought into my life.

After an intense period of counsel, thought, and prayer we were still unsure when the best time would be for our wedding to occur and our marriage to commence: Whether to marry this year or after she graduates in 2010.

Grace and I decided to have a period of time where we were to not contact each other but to spend that time seeking the Lord’s will and answers in our lives.

Ending Valentine’s Day, 2008, these 7 days were painful but rich, and we both, individually, felt God leading us to marry this year.

In the church parking lot, on February 25, 2008, 1 year and 2 weeks after we’d first met in the Sunday School classroom not too far away, I got down on one knee and asked Grace if she would marry me, be my wife and the mother of our children.

She said yes!

American Texan and I will be married August 2nd, 2008, in Dallas TX.

See our website at MattLovesGrace.com

It is not a normal thing, by any means, for IPandora to link to the DailyKo(ok)s and it’s assortment of nutroots, but truth, wherever found, is still truth.

BarbinMD wrote today:

Spitzer’s actions are in no way a reflection of Clinton’s judgement or character. But it does put an open letter sent out this weekend by super delegate Steven Grossman, the former Chairman of the DNC and Clinton supporter, in a whole new light.

And BarbinMD’s excerpt from that letter:

…our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party–and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it–

“What they do in the bedroom is no business of mine” is a common refrain in cases of moral failure by elected government officials of all stripes and parties, usually by those who’ve invested effort in getting those officials in their positions.

If we really believe that, why are not Spitzer’s actions dismissed out of hand?

Because we don’t believe that.

What is done in the bedroom matters very much outside the bedroom.

If a man cannot honor his wife and family in his own home, his word cannot and ought not be trusted in any other part of his life.

And we know it.

Tellingly, BarbinMD completes their commentary with this gem:

All things considered, perhaps Mr. Grossman and his ilk should spare us their experience and morals and instead respect the will of the voters.

UPDATE: Roger Simon asks for a reality check-up on Alan Dershowitz who apparently doesn’t think it’s such a big deal.

And points Spitzer has made it a signature part of this platform putting prostitutes in jail.

What about the johns? And Spitzer?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt highlights an article by Carol Platt Liebau “Will Spitzer Resign” in which she makes the following statements:

…(Spitzer) may not plan to resign.  If that’s true, it’s part of a new and troubling pattern in American political life.  It’s not a partisan thing; Larry Craig’s refusal to resign was another manifestation of it.

The whole idea, pioneered by you-know-who and enabled by you-know-who-else, is that illicit sexual behavior and the scandals resulting therefrom can be brazened out by the insistence that they are irrelevant to the discharge of public duties.

…it’s all part of a new ethical calculus concluding that – uniquely in the constellation of virtues — sexual morality is a subjective and purely personal matter that’s of relevance only to “religious” people (or else prurient and “judgmental” ones), even when it impacts the public.

IPandora is ashamed to say we did not trumpet the call for Mr. Craig’s resignation. In defense, I thought there was a lot of condemning going on and not a lot of proof or evidence at the time.

Nothing against the condemning, just when I wasn’t convinced of the burden of proof I wasn’t ready to condemn.

On Sunday, February 24th 2008, I asked the wonderful woman in my life if she would marry me, be my wife and the mother of our children.

She said yes.

American Texan and I will be tying the knot this August.

McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.

Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.

Buying votes with your cash.

First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.

But whose money do they use? Yours.

If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.

Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.

It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.

He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.

If only more in the current crop of public megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.

But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.

The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.

The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.

The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:

• We are better at choosing those causes which are actually worthy.
• We’re less likely to be duped in significant numbers and for substantial amounts of money than the government with its fat-handed largess.
• And it doesn’t cost as much for us to get our money to those causes which are worthy, so more money gets to them overall and less is wasted in the endless iterations of bureaucracy.

Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.

Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.

The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.

The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.

Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.

Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.

Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.

Check his closet for skeletons.

With many thanks to Ms. Green, here’re a few bits of meat for y’all to chew on:

• Michael T. Eckhart, president of American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a hot head and really ought to keep up the good work of exposing his own side for the windbags they are.
• His email got to the wrong (right?) people.
• And now he’s on Youtube:

• Marlo “full of crap” responds.
• People keep saying Eckhart “apologized” but there are only two articles on his blog, and they’re from September of ‘06.
• Meanwhile, back where it matters, over 400 prominent scientists rebuke the Global Warming Alarmists and Propagandists, stating that, were it not for threats against their careers and livelihoods, there would be significantly more of them standing up against the claims of global warming.
  • I say they all should start their own school and weather station and policy think tank together and start throwing cool mud all over Gore and his sycophants.
• 2007 is now “The Year Of Global Cooling“
• …and RickKalgaard, quoting Martin Wolf, asks “Is Algore a ‘Red-Green’ or a ‘Green-Green’“?

Meanwhile, Bush is kicking tail and taking names. I don’t like some of what he’s pushed lately, but I see that I can continue to trust him as a man of his word: saying what he’ll do and doing what he says.

This strength has made him the winner by a wide margin in the battles between the White House and the Congress. Democrats just can’t lead when their leadership means whining and crying and flying in defeat. Passing useless resolutions and pointless pontification do not a leader make.

And Mitt is an honorable man.

Novak gushes, but I agree:

More and more this year, among the other pro-life candidates, I have been attracted by Mitt Romney’s good and cheerful disposition, level-headedness, and unruffable temperament (if there is such an adjective). You may think this is silly, but to me he both looks like and acts like a president. He would be easy to watch on the morning and nighttime news for the next eight years. His quiet and steady voice would be easy to take. He has the habits of an executive, not a legislator – action, not just talk. And I admire the way he honors his wife and his family – including his own mother and father.

Keep reading.

John Shore put down an excellent list that bears reading in it’s entirety.

Highlights include:

2. So wise she makes Confucius look like Goober Pyle.
Upside: Your own private oracle!
Downside: Wise people are extremely good at anticipating the outcome of things that slightly less wise people do. Not entirely gratifying.

3. So perfectly matches your idea of heart-stoppingly gorgeous that just looking at her wipes every thought out of your head.
Upside: Constant aesthetic revelation.
Downside: It’s rude to stare.

8. Shares your spiritual values.
Upside: The regular achieving of deep and mutual spiritual experience simultaneously realized.
Downside: None.

And yes, I readily admit to being twitterpated.

I listened to several recordings of people caught in the pathos of the incidents surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The disparity between those who were leaders and those who were led as sheep was appalling.

There was the flight attendant, Ms. Ong, on American flight 11 who calmly assessed the situation and dealt with what she could, calling American Airlines reservations from her cell phone while locked in the cabin facing two stabbed flight attendants, one stabbed passenger, mace, and a locked cockpit door. Ms. Ong is a hero. She did not end up saving any lives, but she did her job, standing by her post, remaining calm, and doing what she could with what she had to try and fix what she could of the situation.

[Warning: These recordings are disturbing, the last one is very disturbing]

There was Kevin Cosgrove who began calmly, telling the 911 dispatcher his location, number, and who was with him, asking that the firefighters be directed to his location. But as the call progresses he begins to panic as he feels his future slipping away. Repeatedly shouting that he is too young to die, he berates the 911 operator, screaming that she bring in fire departments from as far as Ohio in his desperate attempt to foment his rescue. I cannot blame him, judge him, or even critique him for his desperate pleas, I have not faced death as he did. I can only assume that circumstances he is in would break many people, utterly. But you can hear the desperation in his voice as he looks for rescue. His is a voice of hopelessness. He is not ready to meet his maker. He isn’t ready to leave his wife, who he’d just called and told he was on his way out of the building when the second building (his building) is hit. You hear him scream as the building begins to fall, and you know he will soon meet God.

[Video was removed from youtube]

No one is too young to die. It is reasonable to see a young person and assume that they have more life before them than the person in the retirement facility down the street. But we have neither the knowledge nor the control to promise that child will not die in an accident today and that retiree might live for 20 more years, or more. God decides for each our time, we are expected to live our time to its fullest for Him. No more, no less. It is not for us to judge ones readiness to die, but to judge those who kill. God has given government the right of protection and justice, our government has rightly and righteously pursued the perpetrators of this terror.

For Mr. Ong as for Mr. Cosgrove, and for all those people for whom evil has proven fatal, we fight. Whether they died in fear or in courage, whether they were in the towers, at the pentagon, or among the heroes on flight 93. Whether they are American, or the huddled fear-ridden peoples of the middle east who have been terrorized for millenia longer than any of us in the west have.

My English critical thinking class seems to be in the full swing of the gender roles discussion; it is our first essay! This follows a rhetorical analysis paper we did on an excerpt (from “Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality) about what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’ in North America and the social schemas of man and woman; authored by Aaron Devor (published 1989). I honestly have no issues with his writing because it is well organized with an introduction, arguments, body defining ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and a conclusion. He makes real observations and sound contrasting between the gender roles but it is with his conclusion that I have issue as it is far too short. He takes all of time to set the reader up properly and he concludes that the gender schemes are a matter of, “systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.” While I can tolerate his lack of articulation with such a huge idea, and agree with him, I believe I better sum it up with (keep in mind I’m writing it to context):

“In conclusion America was originally established as a patriarchal system in which male attributes were valued more than women attributes and because of this women have been wrongfully discriminated against. Still to this day in the 21st century America witnesses to the discrimination of women in the workplace, politics, civil rights and religion because of the gender schema placed on each sex. While there is still more work to be done in releasing ourselves from these gender schemes we must appreciate how far America, and even the world, has come and it is important to look back over the past to see what successes have been made.”

With that said I will jump to the classes’ interaction on this topic. As the except was analyzed in groups you got the feeling that people were mostly in agreeance with Devor but couldn’t quite seem to associate with what he was stating. For example, we could all agree that ‘masculine’ was being powerful, of prowess, forthright and ‘feminine’ was subdued, polite, and reserved but we couldn’t agree to how that actually applied to today. Devor’s writing would have us believe that the sexes are still in competition to one another versus both sexes complimenting one another. The teacher seemed a little concerned we weren’t getting the message as each student spoke up and explicitly or implicitly stated the gender roles have been blended and blurred. Followed was a student’s comment on how old the except was, “Near twenty years,” and how old Devor’s references were, some thirty years old which was agreed makes a big difference in context. I could see the light shining through slowly that everyone wasn’t buying the line. And then it finally hit me and I put in my voice.

“It isn’t that what is ‘feminine’ and what is ‘masculine’ has changed, as if that was the problem all along, it that’s as a society we value both gender roles more equally. Rather than these roles being in competition for value they are viewed today as complimenting one another and thus more equally valued.”

With this you could tell the final nail was sunk into the coffin of any hopes to bemoan the fact that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Many of the students followed with agreeance in their own ways. The African man piped up and said in his thick accent, “Yes, because with my parents my mom stayed home and cared for the children while my dad worked and fed the family. But it is not like that anymore, because in my family at the end of the month I ask my wife, ‘What bills are you paying and what bills am I paying’?” The teacher voiced her opinion that she was unsure of this fact and readmitted the question testing to see if we were sure the gender roles are more equally valued. Again more students reaffirmed what everyone and myself had been saying. I brought up the example of the show, “Queer Eye For The Sight Guy,” in which men favorably take on ‘feminine’ traits of manners, communication, thoughtfulness, etc and this is far more accepted today. It is also far more acceptable for women to reject men forthright and state their opinions.

Class was coming to a close and our teacher had to hand out the essay one topic. As I packed my items away I listened to her describe the coming writing task. We are to take Devor’s writing and compare it to one of today’s TV shows and see if his observations have remained true. Immediately this took me as very odd. I’d think an honest essay would examine whether or not Devor’s except is applicable at all to today, not some TV show. So I said my thoughts, “That seems a little odd in that Devor’s except is an honest examination of the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ genders in real life in North America but TV shows are purely an exaggeration of life. This assumes that TV shows actually represent real life today, which is not true as they take the highlights and make a show about it; like Seinfeld.” She replied quickly, “But that’s a comedy what about ‘Gray’s Anatomy’?” Hoping I’d think that was more real. However, I rejected that and replied, “When I was becoming an EMT I was in an ER room and it was extremely boring and the coolest thing that happened that night was a kid came in with a broken arm,” the classroom laughed as I continued, “and there was no such thing as adulterous affairs, arguments, gun shot wounds all in one shift. It is exaggerated and so are ‘reality shows’.” She couldn’t reply to this as we in a previous class discussed how fantastical shows such as Survivor were because of all the editing.

Luckily for the teacher time was up and we were all ready to leave and she dismissed us with the promise to continue this in the next session. Nevertheless, I believe I made a sound argument for not using TV in such an analytical essay. So we shall see, if she will not change her mind I will use such shows as, “Sex In The City” and “Will And Grace” to illustrate how much American has changed. Therefore, in conclusion it is not about the wiping away of what is ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ the argument that we should be discussing is how each is valued. The fact is there is male and there is female and they are both different and similar and both are needed to complete the circle of life within a family and community. I believe America and other societies, should be more dynamic in their blending of the genders but still respect the fact that we are man and woman. An example of this is in my own house, I often will do the house chores while my wife will tend to her business. I have no problem with it and nor does she. I don’t feel any less masculine nor does she feel any less feminine. There are many example of this in our marriage yet I remain the husband and she remains the wife with love and respect.

My girlfriend will enjoy this post, for in her veins flows strong the thick blood of Texas. My mother’s family will enjoy this as well, for not only does their blood flow thick with Texas, but several of them are alumni of Texas A&M as well. But I did not write it for them. I write this for heroes, those who give their all. Not all heroes are supermen and women, not all heroes wear uniforms (though heroes are found in the uniform of the US Military in greater concentration than anywhere else), but all heroes value life.

I have not appreciated the spirit of a college, having attended a working-class school and not really participated in any of the trite, feel-good ceremonies the liberal leadership proscribed as being inclusive and enlightening. Being around my aunts and uncles I have vivid memory of them displaying the college cheer of Texas A&M and the explaining the tradition of the 12th man. This was but a taste. Now I have cousins who attend at Texas A&M, Corpus, and I feel an affinity which perhaps brings me closer to that great state. God has brought into my life a beautiful woman who hails from that state and I feel closer still. So as I’m perusing the blog world today I follow from the 4simpsons (very funny) through a commentor named Timothy to his own blog, which is new to me. Reading the top post and playing the video (view below) I learn of the story of the bonfire tradition and the tragedy of November 18th, 1999, when the logs fell.

All types of people can be found in all places, but in some places a particular spirit flows stronger than others. In Texas it’s the spirit of community. Ironically, or perhaps not, Texas is a land of rugged individualism, the lean lonesome cowboy of yesteryear, quintessential icon of the southwest. The settler pushing the envelope of western civilization, braving the terrors of the trail, the homestead, the farm and the ranch miles from any neighbor. It is among those who are comfortable in their own individuality there is found the best sense of community. A paradox, but one I can vouch for in my own life. Codependent people make poor neighbors, for themselves, and for those around them.

It is in this paradox of community that Texas has bred its sons and daughters to be strong and brave, free of the fetters of dependent mush so common among the pantywaist liberal mush pervading so many communities these days. And so when a few energetic, promising youth fell with the logs and died painful deaths, the school never forgot. From our small perspective futures were cut short, but in the grand scheme, through the eyes of God their days were complete. But that leave us, the community, the friends and the family to remain behind, mourning the fact that it may be a long time before we see them again. Hopefully we are assured that we shall see them again in glory.

Such is the case of Timothy Doran Kerlee, Jr. Timothy is reportedly seen in the stack directing rescuers to others who are buried in the stack from his position above the ground. In the pictures one can see his legs are twisted in an unnatural position and when he finally allowed the rescuers to extract him after assisting them in finding at least 5 other injured, he was taken in to emergency surgery. He was opened and it was found that his internal organs were in such a mess as to be unrecognizable even to the skilled physicians operating on him. He was taped back together and put on life support where he remained only long enough to see his family one last time. He knew he was dying. He directed that life support be removed asking why he should fight for a few more days of life when he could go home and see Jesus right away.

“So teach us to number our days”~Psalm 90:12

Timothy is a hero. And he is not forgotten.

Another great tradition of Texas A&M is that of the 12th man. The 12th man embodies the concept of knowing who your family is and being willing always to stand, when called or when needed, beside them. Your family may be blood, relatives, or it may be community. Each and every Texas A&M student and alumni I have talked to has impressed me with their firm belief that where they called upon to suit up and stand on the field as the 12th man of the Texas Aggies football squad, they would not shirk their responsibility. Each and every Aggie fan I know takes this responsibility with a nearly holy sense of pride. It is not the ability, it is the willingness. It is doing what one must when one is called to do it that makes a hero. Especially when one is called beyond the normal call of duty.

I’m glad God made Texas.

[youtube p_os8SznZ5I]

All my reading and perusing today seemed to be along the lines of the problem of Islam. There are several gems which I’d like to bring to y’alls attention.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has put together rebuttals to the Amanpour slander-fest, CNN’s “Holy War”. I have not seen, nor do I care to see (as I like to avoid those things which will certainly shorten my life by raising blood pressure and depleting IQ) this series but I’ve heard naught but the most steady slamming of its vociferous and detestably slanderous lies. Even others in the MSM have taken shots at the show.

CAMERA breaks its rebuttals down into three separate articles :

1. God’s Jewish Warriors – CNN’s Abomination
   

   “God’s Jewish Warriors” (is) one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing “martyrdom,” or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

2. God’s Muslim Warriors — CNN’s Double Standard
   

   While much of the program was informative and fair (in contrast to the propagandistic nature of Part One,”God’s Jewish Warriors”), there were serious flaws and glaring omissions. Among the most important shortcomings, extremist Muslim beliefs and practices were often minimized and many of the key causes for the spread of Muslim supremacist beliefs went unexplored.

3. God’s Christian Warriors— CNN Slurs Christians
   

   At the end of this segment, devoted to “God’s Christian Warriors,” Amanpour left viewers with a warning that society cannot ignore “the millions of people who feel their faith is being ignored, is being pushed aside and who are certain they know how to make the world right.”

   Given the huge levels of religiously motivated violence taking place in the world today – most of it perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims – Amanpour is right. Religious fundamentalism cannot be ignored.

   But if Americans are going to determine how to respond to religious extremism on both an international and societal level, they surely cannot rely on Amanpour’s coverage of the issue. In her coverage of “Christian Warriors” Amanpour demonstrates a predictable inability to discern the difference between Christians in the U.S. who organize politically to affect public policy and suicide bombers in the Middle East who target civilians in an attempt to intimidate their opponents into submission.

So there you have it. CNN thinks I’m as likely as Sadr to kill and maim and destroy life and property merely because I believe that God (not Allah, the false god) has standards and rules and promises blessing to those who follow them. God, unlike the false demon Allah, forbids the killing of people except when they themselves have killed and are judged worthy of that judgment, instead reserving the right to vengeance to Himself and urging us instead to love and seek to turn those who disagree with us with tangible acts of mercy and humility.

Allah, the demon, requires that each of his servants be enactors of bloody retribution on those they deem his enemies. Humans cannot judge the heart or the motives, only God the Just Judge can do that. We have limited means of determining the real events while God with His infinite knowledge and wisdom and insight into each our hearts and minds is the perfect Judge and protects both the innocence of the innocent and the guilt of the guilty with His reserving that vengeance to Himself.

Islam also breed distrust and dishonesty among its adherents. It is permissible to lie in certain circumstances in Islam: when dealing with infidels (that’s us) and when your wife asks if you love her (that makes me mad and sad). In much the same way as Mormonism, the female in Islam is a second-rate baby machine whose purpose here and hereafter is to please the men by providing sexual service in a place of servitude,bringing (male) progeny for the man to further his name. The infidel exists only to be given one chance to convert and then to experience immediate destruction, often in humiliating and horrific manner. There is no acceptance. There is no forgiveness. There is no choice.