OK, it looks like this blog is becoming my tag blog right now. I hope to put up some posts here (sometime), but right now, I have so many projects to work on and so little time to complete them.

In the meantime, however, my blogger friend Fida Abbott is getting tagged and passing them on to me. She recently tagged me, and gave me the "Great Buddy" award. Thanks, Fida. Congratulations for winning 15th place in the Personal Blogs Finalist at Christian Indonesia Blog Festival 2008! I am very happy for you!

So, here goes the tag! Here are the rules:

• Save the image above to be forwarded;
• Choose several person;
• Give the reason why you chose those person.

OK, here is the image: The people I would like to choose are those faithful readers (and ones who leave comments) on my blog. I choose the following, because they have have encouraged me, cross-examined my work, given me input, and helped me make my blogging venture a success, simply by their participation. Congratulations!

• Mrs. Mecomber of New York Traveler
• HH of Adventures in the Life of Upstate New York!
  
• James Goswick of Our Founding Truth
• Rob Scott of The Hamiltonian Federalist Forum
• Stephen Palmer of The Cause of Liberty

If I may, I would also like to return this award to FIDA ABBOTT! She is a really good blogger buddy, too. Thanks, Fida.

P. S. I would also like to alert my blogger friends that they have a chance to sign the Declaration of Independence, via Stephen Palmer's blog, The Cause of Liberty. Your opportunity is unique, for any remarks you make won't have to be passed through tradition, like to words of our Founders, as they signed. Rather, you can record your own words (no more than 225 characters) beside your signature.

One note of precaution, however. As was the case with our Founders, signing the Declaration was no show. It was a very serious and dangerous commitment. Before you sign, I would ask you to seriously consider the rules laid forth for becoming a member of my Friends of Liberty blogroll. In 1776, our Founders knew their commitment could cost them their lives, and more. Maybe a look at the signature of Stephen Hopkins would give you an idea of what they were feeling at that time. His reported words match his signature: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not!"(1)

Well well well. My relatively new blogger friend Fida Abbott has tagged me again. I have a set of questions that I need to answer. I will (bravely) do my best. :)

1. At what age do you wish to marry?
Honestly, I have no plans to marry, so I guess my answer would be "0"?

2. If you can turn into anything, what do you wish to turn into?
Oh boy. Brainstorming here. I guess I would turn into an eagle, so I could fly on my own (I always thought that flight would be an exhilarating experience), but I would probably want to change back to me. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, eh?

3. If you were on a desert island, who are three blog buddies you would take with you? Why?
Well, I don't know that many bloggers, but I would list three qualifications for the buddies I would choose:
1. One who knew about desert island survival.
2. One who needs (and can stand) a good skin tan.
3. Anyone but a blond who suggests packing a car door (I'll talk about that later).

4. Where is the place that you want to go most?
Heaven, God's place.

5. If you had one dream to come true, what would it be?
Just one dream? I would choose to be instrumental in the genuine conversion of even just one person. Human souls last eternally. Human projects and earthly ambitions last for only a while. Dreams of eternity are those that are the greatest, In My Humble Opinion.

6. Who is on your mind right now?
My new friend Fida, who tagged me. I am hoping she likes my homework, and gives me a pass. :)

7. What are you afraid to lose the most right now?
Well, two things: 1) my blogs, because I've heard that some are being arbitrarily deleted, and 2) my cat, who is aging. He is such a nice fellow; very loyal, very useful, very well-behaved and affectionate.

8. Do you want your firstborn to be a boy or a girl. Why?
I guess my answer to Question #1 would disqualify me to answer this one. But I probably would never be able to make up my mind anyway.

9. If you met someone you love, would you confess to him/her?
Hopefully I would have nothing to confess! :)

10. List three things about the person who tagged you:
1) She is a very kind and considerate person,
2) She is polite and encouraging,
3) She has a love of learning and developing potential -- excellent qualities

11. What colour do you like? Why?
I have four favorite colors: deep blue, deep green, deep red, and indigo. They are very rich, and they go well together.

12. What type of person do you hate the most?
The one who uses and abuses other people for his own selfish gain.

13. What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Oh boy, this is a hard question. I would do many things with it, including giving it to people who need it much more than I. I might invest part of it in travel, and another part of it in some much-needed home renovation.

14. What is your ambition?
A single ambition? My ultimate ambition is to be used of God to point people to the truth -- ultimately to Him. And that my life would be used of Him for an enduring legacy that would inspire people with a holy zeal for His namesake.

15. What would you wanna be after you're dead?
Hmmm. Hard to make up my mind here ... I sure don't want to be tiger food!

16. If you have a chance, which part of your character would you like to change?
I would like to change from being very timid to being more personable.

17. What do you most want to achieve now?
I want to achieve some good credit for a book I plan to write.

18. What do you think is the most important thing in your life?
Serving God and man, in His love.

19. If there’s one thing in your life you want to do but yet unable to, what would it be?
Fly! :)

20. Among all the questions asked, which one do u like most? Why?
I like Question #3, because I laughed to myself after I read my answer. :)

Whew! Well, Fida, I finished my homework! I hope I passed my "exam"!

Thanks for tagging me.

It. Stinks.

I found this (semi-) hilarious parody of the atheistic movement, at the website of Gary DeMar's group, American Vision.

Think about that the next time someone reminds you of the Crusades or the Inquisition. Also remind them, that they need to brush up on their history.

Some days ago I was reading some of the speeches of Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, and a candidate for the Presidency in 2008. I support Paul because of his strict adherence to the Constitution, our Founding Fathers original intent, his Christian worldview, and his unimpeachable voting record. I am very sorry to understand that the mainstream evangelical Christian conservative Right is not supporting him as much as they should be, and that they seem more comfortable with candidates like Huckabee, Romney, and even Guliani (here is a blog who addresses the issue well).

But back to the point. I was reading this speech by Ron Paul, delivered before the U.S. House on March 10, 2004, entitled "An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment." Here, Ron Paul discusses the "Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004," which was soon to be debated on the House floor.

We will soon debate the “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” on the House Floor. This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech. ... Though [it] may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.

This act was no doubt sponsored by many concerned citizens, most of them Christians, who, with the best of intentions, wanted to take some sort of action against indecency on the airwaves. However, as Ron Paul points out in this address, this bill, and others like it, will do more harm than good in solving the problem with society which we are witnessing today. Ron Paul explains:

Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.

But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech. ...

And it will be assumed [by the Right, who endorse the bill] that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios. For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal. [emphasis added]

But this current proposal is dangerous. Since most Americans – I hope – are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed. We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe.

The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. The real harm comes later. But “later” is now approaching.

What Congressman Paul continues to say, and what is his whole point is that the government bill

1. is not constitutional, since it contradicts the Bill of Rights by regulating speech and press; if any act should be passed by a legislature banning garbage on the air, it should be the state and local legislatures, not the federal legislature.
2. will be completely ineffective in fulfilling its own aim: improving the moral character of the nation, or at least curbing the immorality so boldly expressed nowadays.
   
3. will eventually make the way for future government officials to pass bills restricting permissible content on the airwaves, such as Christian evangelism or making a stand against immorality in society.

Paul continues, in a style and train of thought reminiscent to that of the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer's speech A Christian Manifesto at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Paul argues:

Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression. Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed. Societal standards will not be improved. Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer. ...

We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. ...

If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities – never by government coercion. It just doesn’t work.

If the Christian conservatives and voters, and other concerned citizens would learn this lesson, which Schaeffer and other like him (not to mention our long-lost-friend the Holy Spirit) has been trying to teach us, than we would be winning the "Culture War," and not struggling in the mud. We would realize that our victory lies not in the number of professing born-again Christians in our government, or in the proclamations they make which pander to Christians, or in bills and acts and court decisions which ban abortion, sodomy, etc., but rather in the ability of the people to govern themselves. Right now, Americans do not have that ability. To demonstrate this, let me ask if, in actual practice and not merely in creed, the majority of Christians in this country base their views and their morals (in everyday circumstances) upon the Word of God, or on what the majority thinks at any given time. Even in Christian circles, if someone were to object to something, and cite Scripture as the authority, that person often gets blank stares and is ignored, if not slighted and patronized. Our own daily lives demonstrate that we are not, as a nation, morally and intellectually prepared for what we riotously clamor: a smaller government. Until the moral character of this country changes, which, as Congressman Paul rightly deduced, must begin, not in the legislature, but in "our families, churches, and communities," and it MUST being in that precise order, than we will always need big government.