I'm about to call it a day, but before I do, there are a few matters that I'd like to ask those of you who will to pray about.
First, my precious friend Tiffany continues her valiant fight against breast cancer. She's doing incredibly well, in fact, she makes a weekly trip to Crowder's Mountain for a hike to the top! Please keep praying because God is really doing a beautiful work through the ministry He's given her as a result of this trial. (You can check out her blog by clicking the link on my blog list.) I can't wait for the day that she can report to us all that she is completely cancer free and no longer needs chemo!
Until then, she'll make weekly trips to Duke for treatment. In October and November, two fundraisers will be held to help defray some of the non-covered medical expenses their family is incurring. Please pray specifically that the people organizing these efforts have wisdom as they make plans for these big events! I'll post details when I have them about times and places.
Next, please go to The Murray Family blog linked on my blog list and read about little Susannah. Let's all pray for this child's surgery and for her family as they endure this difficult time.
Be blessed tonight. I thank God for people who pray.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
She's Here!
Lilia Carolyn greeted the world at 12:47 p.m. on September 19, 2008. She weighed 7 lbs. 14 oz. and is 21 inches long. We are all overjoyed and thankful that God has blessed our family with a beautiful addition!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Birthdays!
I LOVE birthdays! Tomorrow, we are expecting the birth of our second grandchild--Lilia ___?____! Pray for Leslie, Steven (and Ava Grace) as their family grows by one within the next 24 hours.
Next week (on the 26th) Ava Grace will be 1 year old! Time flies people!
And, my life-long friend Melanie has a significant birthday on Saturday--I won't divulge her age, but they make special cards for this one!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY special people!
Next week (on the 26th) Ava Grace will be 1 year old! Time flies people!
And, my life-long friend Melanie has a significant birthday on Saturday--I won't divulge her age, but they make special cards for this one!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY special people!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Obvious Bias
Before I begin this post, let me admit upfront that I like Sarah Palin. I believe it's because I can identify with her on many levels, not the least of which is our shared passion to see America remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. That stated, I watched the ABC interviews in which Charles "Charlie" Gibson attempted to prove his tough journalistic prowess while interviewing John McCain's running mate.
The New York Times ran an article on September 12 from which I've extracted the following:
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
In a brilliant response, Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post on September 13, that Charlie Gibson AND The New York Times both got it wrong.
He writes: "There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Krauthammer goes on to defend his contention that Gibson and The NY Times were both wrong by pointing out that HE, in fact, was the first person to ever use the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an article published on June 4, 2001 in The Weekly Standard--verifiable by looking up "Bush Doctrine" in Wikipedia.
He continues: "If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption...
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."
Contrast the arrogance of the media elite against Sarah Palin (Krauthammer excepted) with their many polite excuses for Barack Obama's blunder when he said that he was campaigning in all 57 states..."He was tired from the tough campaigning." I'm sure he was. But I also know this and it's scary. There are 57 Islamic states. Could that have been his actual intent? I don't know and will never know. But this I do know--when he told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday morning that it was true that John McCain had never attacked his "MUSLIM" faith, I was watching.
The New York Times ran an article on September 12 from which I've extracted the following:
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
In a brilliant response, Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post on September 13, that Charlie Gibson AND The New York Times both got it wrong.
He writes: "There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Krauthammer goes on to defend his contention that Gibson and The NY Times were both wrong by pointing out that HE, in fact, was the first person to ever use the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an article published on June 4, 2001 in The Weekly Standard--verifiable by looking up "Bush Doctrine" in Wikipedia.
He continues: "If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption...
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."
Contrast the arrogance of the media elite against Sarah Palin (Krauthammer excepted) with their many polite excuses for Barack Obama's blunder when he said that he was campaigning in all 57 states..."He was tired from the tough campaigning." I'm sure he was. But I also know this and it's scary. There are 57 Islamic states. Could that have been his actual intent? I don't know and will never know. But this I do know--when he told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday morning that it was true that John McCain had never attacked his "MUSLIM" faith, I was watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)