Saturday, August 27, 2005

War between the States, and the commies

I have some things that I hope the Republicans get clarification from Judge Roberts. His writing some twenty years about the War between the States is not one of them. It really shows how desperate the Marxists are. I guess I should be worried someday because of some of the things that I write.

First of all, the founders would believe that Government comes from consent of the governed. For those of you in Massichutes that means the Republic was voluntary.

Secondly, Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery, Also so could have Lee and most of their contempories on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. (Draft riots in New York) Most historians agree that the War between the States had little or nothing to do about slavery and more to do with impositions the North was placing on the South.

Third, when Lincoln won reelection he was congratulated by Karl Marx. Which makes me question his dedication to the Federal Republican ideals.
He violated the Constitution to a point that would make FDR proud. Including the introduction of paper currency (an inflationary act), The illegal formation of West Virgina. Then two years into the war for political expediency just to keep Great Britain out the war The emancipation proclamation which clearly shows Lincoln thinks of himself more of an all powerful king.

At the time the South Secceded, there was increasing dichotomy in this country. The South left to protect themselves from an increasingly powerful Central government. (Remember the recent Supreme Court ruling about immenate domain where the government can take land from one party to give to another) What would have happened if the South would have won. Slavery would have faded away, the central government would be subservient to the States, and the Founders of the Country would be in place.

For those of you who are sure that the South mainly did this for racism, let me remind you there were black and Indians fighting for the confederacy.

For it to be a true civil war the group revolting would want to change the form of government. The Southern Constitution was based on the US Constitution. May be the best way to name the war is to call it The war for States rights because that is what it really was.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

St. Paul

First of all I am not legalistic, I am not works oriented. This is currently my view of God:

  1. He is a warrior
  2. He is a protector of widows and orphans
  3. He is Just
  4. He is a God of second chance

And as long as we confess our sins and pursue holiness we will be judged good and faithful servant.

My problem is coming with the Pauline letters. Right now with the paradigm I have now I can see the causal effect that caused my dad's death, heck I can get how 9/11 happened. But right now we have been going through Ephesians and Philippians in our Wednesday morning Bible study. It seems like Paul throws out the law and says all we need is grace. The thing I keep pondering is Christ said that he came to fulfill the law not to negate it. Going back to the 10 Commandments and looking at them as though it is love applied (I don't believe love is an emotion, I believe it is closer to an oath or a promise). I can understand if a person is worried about if I keep this law or that law I am ok and you miss the personal relationship with Christ then there is a problem, which in honesty I have told people. But what worries me IF someone so fully applies grace that they feel as if they can sin and there is no consquence (which I have known many Christians that act this way).

Now, I am not totally placing my life under the Law, but I take delight in the law and I think I have more freedom by living more or less under the law because I have more a sense of the boundaries and I can grasp what God expects of me as a Christian. I don't about if I tried to live totally under grace I could feel as secure in God's love that I do now.

I guess another way explaining where I am at is if my life was introuble I would trust a lawyer over a doctor, because a lawyer has a standard (or the Law) to say where the boundries are. Doctors don't have any guidelines to live by. (I dated a nurse once we discussed medical ethics they are more fluid than a Bill Clinton statement in front of a grand jury).

I don't expect anyone to live up the standard I live. I believe that salvation is incumbent on the things I have mentioned before along with our reaction and relationship to God. I do my best not to be a stumbling block to another to get to the Father and I rarely confront someone with something (usually I get asked) because I don't know everything I'm just close is all (well that's my story and I'm sticking to it).

The bottom line is I am at the beginning at the a paradigm shift and I don't know what's going to happen.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005


The jury that gave the woman of a husband that died due to vioxx should be beaten like a red-headed stepchild. First of 250 million from a drug company that supposedly knew that the drug would kill. Well if that's the case then arrest the individuals that were responsible for this murder. This didn't happen.

It takes 10 years to get a drug past the the FDA. If they couldn't find a problem then how do we know that there is something wrong with the drug? Merk has quit selling Vioxx.

How do we know that the man didn't have heart problems from the beginging? We don't.

In the end this is going to hurt the American public, because this will drive up insurance costs. Making pharmaceutical companies costs higher which will pass it on to consumers.

The dirty little secret about everyone's life is EVERYONE DIES. There may be some restitution that should be made but there is such a thing as justice $250 million isn't it because it affects a lot of people.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Mad Cow 2

According to the USDA and the FDA you can't contact bovine spongiform encephalopathy from milk.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Dear Anti-nuke and Anti-Americans

This last weekend for those of you in California was the celebration of Victory in Japan. The so there has been the obligatory documentaries on hirostima and Nagasaki, but they included two new documentaries one on operation x-ray. The invasion of Japan, some of the estimates figured at least 1 million American troops dead then as many as 20 million Japanese dead.

Again WWII, morality dictated civilian were targets. Look at what happened in the Philippines, China, Indoesa. The Japanese troops would take what was called "comfort women", basically they would rape Chinese and Filipino women. Not to mention the way they brutalized the civilian populations.

We also bombed Dressdan without feeling guilty.

The documentary that the History Channel tonight was about the Japanese Nuclear plan. Evidently there was a Japanese scientist that was in possession of the papers that came to the US after the war showed the papers to his students and after he died his wife released the papers in 2001. Knowing how the Japanese treated those who were captured (for those of you who hate us they beat our boys). How they Attacked China.

Does any of you dispute the idea that Japan would have implemented the bomb if we hadn't dropped ours?

For those of you who think that nukes are the ultimate weapon, That is what Dr. Gattlin thought about his machine gun. He thought he invented something that was so horrible that war would end. He should have stayed out of Karl's personal stash. There IS NO ultimate weapon.

I will be honest I wish we could bring our people home from Iraq but they are fighing for our survival against an enemy that would rather kill you than look at you. We are winning, it is going to take time. Again I have said this before: Look at a map you can see the stragic necessity of Iraq. We are fighting Syria (to the Northwest) fighting Iran (to the east). Lately we have heard how bad Saudi Arabia (honestly I think the leadership supports us) has it for us. With us in Iraq we can support Jordan (they are at least trying how hard well God only knows) and Israel and we are just a hop skip and a jump from Afghanistan.

For those who claim we don't have a plan: VICTORY is the plan nothing short.

Oh yeah something else for you to ponder how many of today's monsters are wanting Nukes? How many radical Islamists are drooling over the idea? How many non-radical Islamists are condemning those who would kill innocent women and children? Egypt is going after Coptic Christians. Most of the problems on the continent of Africa can be traced to either marxist or muslims versus Christians.


Craig A. Olmsted

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

NCAA-Can we change our team to the Fighting Commies

The NCCA has now entered the NHL and Formula 1 arena with their banning of "Offensive" names during tournament times.

Here's the the thing about the word "Sioux", it's French. It's derived from Arapaho meaning snake in the grass. UND has two options change the name or change the mascot to a rattlesnake. Which would be a great way to thumb our nose at you Easterners.

The nations consider a warrior to be someone who looks after the widowed and the tribe. A warrior wouldn't eat unless the women ate first. They were the one's who put their life on the line for the safety of others. Basically, what God expect us men to do. Also, weren't there Germanic warriors, Roman warriors. Heck don't we refer to our SEALs as our best warriors?

What are they going to do about the Fighting Irish? Following there logic it feeds into the stereotype of brawling Irishmen. It seams to me that at the end of the nineteenth century most of the boxers were Irish. Also just so you know look at the roster of troops that were with Custer, you have indians and Irish men fighting with him.

What about Wyoming Cowboys? The term "cowboys" in the nineteenth century was akin to calling someone a rustler. For those of you east of the Mississippi that's a cattle thief. Back in the old days you call someone a thief you would have a quick meeting with a peacemaker or bowie. Seams to me that cowboys is an offensive name.

In high School, I had some Hidsta friends Jason would were an Atlanta Braves Cap (granted this is a MLB team but I just was going to show what indians really thought about this drivel). By the way, the Atlanta Braves were originally in Boston. Can anyone tell me of anything that happened in Boston in 1776? A hint it involves tea.

To be real honest it's just abunch of white people that are wusses that want this change. The indians that bring it up is for attention which I can't blame them when other groups make to much noise. Just so you all realize the government is way behind on the annuities that we swore in the treaties to pay. I dare you to go to Pine Ridge you will see what real poverty is.