By Promoting Spirit August 02, 2010
We are proud to be affiliated! ...read more
By Avon Rep, Emily Seagren May 25, 2009
Thanks for adding me to your business network. ...read more
By Norene's Wedding & Special Events May 15, 2009
I want to say that our prayers from Norene's Bridal will be up front for your mission. I as the Founder of Norene's I am a follower of Christ myself. I as excited about being connected to you. Have a Blessed Day. ...read more
Author: Rev. Cary K. Gordon My grandfathers both passed away many years ago. I miss them greatly. Grandpoppy Mounts held a double doctorate in both Theology and Psychology, in contrast to Granddad Gordon, who left school in the eighth grade in order to survive the great depression.Both served during WW2, and both became equally successful in their respective careers after the war. While neither became "rich" in the financial sense, both were, what I refer to as "wisdom-rich," and they certainly achieved an admirable level of success during their lives.I suppose I'm thinking with nostalgia today,because I just returned from something of a personal pilgrimage to Granddad Gordon's old farm. Someone else owns the property now, but it was really something to walk the fields with my three children he never got to meet. Granddad Gordon was a quiet man, but when he did speak, I listened. (Admittedly, because if I didn't listen, he'd use his leather razor strap on my rear end.)Aren't principles wonderful? Not the kind you learn from a supercilious professor who blathers to his students between adoring glances at his own reflection, but those small-town altruisms that you learned from your grandpa while chit-chatting your way across the pasture, as a kid. The term "progressive" would be fine if it strictly referred to the adventurous nature of technological discoveries, as they apply to the "tools and utilitarian" arena. But that's not what "progressive" means. In political circles the term "progressive" means one believes that those things which are "tools and utilitarian" are inseparably connected to principles of morality and behavior, as well. This is the greatest lie of secular liberalism.The political left in this country think they do, but regardless, principles DON'T suddenly "change" because someone invents a smaller, thinner phone, or GE develops a new microwave that can either cook a meal in less than three seconds or freeze your leftovers in five. I mean, we may someday actually figure out how to instantly "beam" ourselves (Star Trekstyle) to a colony on Mars, but it will still be stupid to "put all our eggs in one basket," and the man who does will still end-up "so broke he can't pay attention." Someone may eventually invent (in contrast to what we have now) an ATTRACTIVE and COMFORTABLE "green" eco-car (that doesn't even require a driver), but a man who doesn't "know his place" will still get "beaten like a rented mule."Americans may continue to vote themselves grand gifts from the U.S. Treasury through the continued election of closet Marxists who saunter the electoral "catwalk" brandishing the designer clothing of the Democrat Party, but when the money-printing machine finally breaks-down, lazy men will still be "like a blister, because he doesn't show up until all the work is done." Mayo may find the cure to cancer (I pray they do), but it will still be impolite to act pretentious in public, goading Grandpa to conclude, "Ah, he's all hat and no cattle."In contrast to Grandpa's simple wisdom, there remains an odd insecurity in academic circles. In order to sell one's "legacy of quality education," one must maintain the appearance of intellectual superiority to that offered by competing institutions. Sometimes it appears as if the professorate is compelled to frame issues in the most COMPLICATED ways possible, so that when he/she finally delivers the solution to the students, it's presented in a way that maintains the mystique of brilliance and the cultured reputation of the establishment. Just watch and listen to the next "guest expert" from Renowned University as he explains the intricacies of the healthcare dilemma to his captive CNN audience. (Meanwhile, the cause of the healthcare problem, as well as the solution, are fairly easy to understand… I'll write about that sometime.)In contrast, Grandpa wasn't in competition with other institutions, he wasn't insecure, and he didn't necessarily care whether or not anyone believed he was or wasn't mentally superior. He just wanted us grandkids to learn the principles that wouldn't change, even if we DID someday earn our PhD. Grandpas have skills! They often know how to take complex issues and make them simple enough for "youngens" to understand, without the conflicts of professorial vanity. You see, the key to understanding allegedly difficult national or even international problems is learning the skill to reduce them to the simplest possible terms.For example, many people today claim that fighting against terrorism abroad is wrong,"because the application of justice against terrorists will only serve to increase terrorism around the world!"Why?"Because when you fight back against the unjust, the unjust get angrier, and therefore, become more unjust in greater numbers."What's the solution?"Open a dialogue with them,"they say. Yet the same people who make this claim surely wouldn't argue that"allowing the police to fight crime in Sioux City, by arresting individual criminals is the wrong thing to do! Because, after all, if you arrest a criminal, it just makes all the other criminals angrier and causes an increase in crime city-wide!"It wasn't too long ago that some Democrats criticized President Obama for allowing the military to shoot and kill the Somali pirates. Why?"Because,"they screeched,"this aggression will only bolster pirate recruitments!"What serendipity I experienced as the President's own flawed argument was used against him, by his own team.The just punishment of evil acts, whether they be in a dark Woodbury County alley, at sea, or in another tyrannical nation with the ability, desire, and intent to harm Americans, REDUCES said acts…it does NOT increase them. Why? Because the principle of justice doesn't change, whether you're dealing with one criminal or a whole international syndicate of them. It isn't that either of my grandfathers would have been against opening a dialogue with criminals and terrorists, either, [I'm chuckling]. I know they both would have supported things like, "Stop or I'll shoot!" as a perfectly good place to begin the dialogue. (How I miss them…how I wish more folks were like them.)Here's my point: reducing the complicated sounding ideas of "international justice" to one of simple justice, as it relates to our backyards, helps us better understand problems that aren't necessarily as complicated as the media and politicians like to make them appear. Their arguments may well sound all "hoity toity," but a principle doesn't change, whether it's applied in the woodshed or with "water-board." Most enjoyably, to a man such as I, remembering Granddad's common sense makes it easier to expose the not-so-hot canards of "professorial liberalism."Many of our current problems in America are sourced in what is best described with the southern simplicity my grandpa might have used if he were still alive. You see, in past elections, Americans were talked into "sellin' their mule so they could buy a plow," and congress has become "a little too big for their britches." But come the next election, they may finally understand that "a tree don't ever get too big for a short dog to lift his leg up on!"This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 2:56 pm and is filed underPolitics. You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0feed. You canleave a response, ortrackbackfrom your own site. ...read more
By Peacemakers Institute July 18, 2009
All the King's Horses! By Rev. Cary K. GordonThere was (and is) a law that governed the operation of the entire universe long before any three members of a group of five formed a majority! And that law cannot be changed; it can only be rebelled against or obeyed!Some people call it "natural law," but old-fashioned, outdated, "non-progressive" conservatives like me call it"Divine Law."In contrast to the good sense of Jesus Christ, who, in Matthew 5:45, taught what should be so obvious to everyone (that men can't change sunrises or weather patterns), our country has now descended to the very depths of humanist depravity, as the not-so-subtle vanity of our elected officials reaches an all-time high! You see, we now have a large population of people who reject the "archaic" religious belief that "Jesus saved the world," in preference to the notion that they must "vote to save the planet" themselves.When you reduce the arguments of radical environmentalism to their logical conclusion, liberal environmentalists believe that man has the awesome power, ability, and moral responsibility to make congress the arbiter of the weather. What that means is that though we haven't yet mastered the technological ability to accurately predict what weather will erupt over the next 12 hours (If you don't believe me, just ask any farmer!), there are those among us who believe they have, strangely enough, created technology that CAN tell the accurate story of what's going to happen to the weather in… 12 million years!I'm sorry, my liberal friends, you just lost me! You see, long before yogurt-eating gurus on both sides of the aisle took over the policy-making in this country and invented the phrase "carbon-footprint," the Judeo/Christian people of the world were living lives of environmental stewardship! Jesus taught environmental stewardship, but what these people are talking about has nothing to do with being an environmental custodian. No, the powers they pretend to possess remind me of cartoons on Nickelodeon!You see, the only persons the current liberal Democrat administration lacks, before they'll be able to successfully achieve these particular secular/humanist goals for America, are the presidential cabinet appointments of the X-Men.Similarly, this gross overestimation of man's power is the inherent problem in the minds of those who promote the creation of "hate-crimes" laws. Though they be mere men, they faithfully pretend to possess the powers to divine the motive of an alleged criminal – something that cannot be done outside of a confession from the guilty himself.Naturally, the same ideological humanists who believe in "man-caused global warming" also support hate-crimes laws! How do we approach this debate? Where does one begin? Well, I think I have an idea. The next time you get into an argument over global warming, ask the radical environmentalist if he trusts the average weekly weather forecast 100% of the time.When he says "no," you can attempt to help him understand why his own vote of no-confidence in tomorrow's forecast is irreconcilable with his environmental ideology. But don't be discouraged if he rejects you carte-blanche. It isn't usually possible to reason with the unreasonable.Along similar lines, the next time you get into an argument with a hate-crimes proponent, ask them to place both their index fingers upon your temples, and tell you what you're thinking. When they ask you if you're crazy, say "not enough to believe in the thought-police!"Since it isn't possible for mere men to do so, Professor Xavier can use Cerebro to accurately assess the guilt of everyone whose thoughts have committed "hate-crimes!" Most importantly, Storm, the wife of King Black Panther (married queen of Wakanda), can use her mystical powers to stop man-caused global warming.If that sounds silly to you, because, after all, "real people can't do those things," then perhaps you'll understand why I find even more silly the suggestion of law-enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, and judges pretending to divine and punish the thoughts of the guilty. I find a certain inescapable irony with the current events surrounding Nancy Pelosi's support for the prosecution of hate-crimes law and her simultaneous aversion to the truth concerning whether or not she was briefed by the intelligence community on the finer points of torture.As a proponent of the "thought-police," isn't she afraid that one of the other "gifted" liberals who also support hate-crimes laws might "read her mind" and expose her? I fear that without the ability to use the water-boarding technique on her, we may never really know the answer to that question.If appointing the Mutant X-Woman named "Storm" to the president's cabinet sounds preposterous, since, after all, "real people can't control the weather," then perhaps you'll understand how absurd it is to believe congress can.The existence of the aforementioned issues are the result of the spawn of secularism – men who don't understand the existence of natural law (what the founders referred to as Divine Law) and think they can overrule it, whether through the canard of the "carbon-footprint," the imaginary "marriage" of gays, or the crystal ball of "hate-crimes," these men march forward in history, leading their fellow lemmings to the very gates of hell!America, not unlike Humpty Dumpty, now sits perched upon a high secular "wall of separation." Revisionists falsely claim the wall was built by the founders, but the historically literate know better. No, the mason who built this wall laid the first brick in Emerson v. Board of Education 1947. He was an activist judge – a loyal "worshiper," if you will, in the "religion" of the secularist neo-enlightenment. He made a dishonest remark to sully so much more than the true legacy of Thomas Jefferson. His remark set the stage for this nation to experience a great fall. The greatestdifferencebetween the nursery rhyme and what we're now experiencing? The same king and horsemen who present themselves to America as the only ones capable of repairing Humpty, if and when he falls, are the same who both built that wall and are now poised to give him a calculated push.The greatestsimilaritybetween the nursery rhyme and reality? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again." So we can either make preparations to eulogize the shattered pieces or begin doing what's necessary to prevent another fall by the next generation. How does one keep from repeating history? Where does one begin?We begin by fighting to maintain an accurate understanding of history. Reject the three weapons of revisionism: 1) Patent untruths; 2) Broad generalizations; 3) Omissions. As you begin to discover the truth about America's rich spiritual heritage, that silly, unconstitutional, revisionist wall, that never should have been built and didn't exist for the first 178 years of American history, can be removed, and future shattering falls can be avoided.If, at long last, you disagree and wish to strengthen the wall, or, perhaps build it a little taller…then at least come to the table with a list of secularist "virtues." Please, do tell (if even only one story) how secularism has strengthened and improved American families, much less, its government or the other governments of the world. (If you do try, consider skipping the story of the 15 failed secularist constitutions of France since our founding in the late 1700's. Oh, and the Salem witch trials occurred BEFORE the constitution was ratified, so skip that one, too.) I'll be waiting patiently for that story. You see, I've never found a single soul who could tell it.This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm and is filed underHistory v. Revisionist,Judicial Activism v. Constitution,Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0feed. You canleave a response, ortrackbackfrom your own site. ...read more
By Peacemakers Institute July 02, 2009
Last week a U.S. senator treated the world to a shocking display of rudeness toward a member of our armed services. As Brigadier Gen. Michael Walsh testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer arrogantly and ignorantly reprimanded an officer and a gentleman who has risked his life many times over for her "right" to become a U.S. senator in the first place. When he respectfully began a statement with "ma'am," she abruptly interrupted and gave the smarmy directive, "You know, do me a favor. Can you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am'? It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it. Yes. Thank you." More than any other group, America's military insist that their members show respect for authority. When addressing a male superior, they say "sir." When addressing female superiors, they say "ma'am." And out of simple politeness and common courtesy toward others, they are also taught to say "sir" and "ma'am" even when addressing civilians. As the wife of a retired naval officer, I have always been so thankful to be in the company of those who serve our nation with such dignity and respect. Many moms and dads are trying to teach their kids to be polite and respectful by using the time-honored titles of "sir" and "ma'am" too. Most women appreciate when someone takes the time to show such honor. We recognize kindness and chivalry when we see it, and we're not so insecure in our gender identity that we lose our dignity by complaining. I guess Sen. Boxer forgot how important it is to be a role model of civility when you are a public figure. As the most powerful person in the room that day, she should have been gracious and kind. She really should have thanked Gen. Walsh for his years of service to our country. She should have expressed praise for all military personnel who are making it possible for other women around the world to enjoy the same privilege that Sen. Boxer has of holding public office or even voting. And she should be aware that most women appreciate the respect afforded by the term "ma'am," regardless of any other gender-neutral titles we may have earned. Instead, she set a poor example, insulted every military officer in the land, and left many males wondering (once again) about how to be respectful to females without inflaming some feminist psychosis. A very likely ripple effect from Sen. Boxer's petty complaint is that many may become afraid to practice simple courtesies, especially toward women. We can't allow our family members to be bullied into choosing the "safe" route and thus abandon acts of common decency. It's sort of like the quandary a male faces in wondering whether or not to open the door for a female, or if he should offer his seat on the subway or help a woman place a heavy bag in the airplane's overhead compartment. The shrill complaints of a few angry feminists have caused many to avoid eye contact and instead, to just look out for themselves. We must teach our sons to value the concepts of respect and kindness enough to always be gentlemen, even if that means making themselves vulnerable to attack. And our young women need to be taught to accept the thoughtful gestures for what they are -- thoughtful gestures. Showing and accepting kindness for and from others is the definition of civility, and our nation needs more of it. So, in the wake of this much-discussed rudeness by a prominent public official, let's make it an opportunity to remind our kids to always err on the side of respect. Click Here to Read and Post Feedback Send this page to a friend Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com ...read more
By Peacemakers Institute June 23, 2009
Finding the money to go to graduate school can be difficult. Funds through the Federal Aid may be limited because you have already gone to school twice. There are other places that funding may be available so that you can get your final degree. Because many institutions want to see you succeed, there ... ...read more
After you go to school for four years usually students can enter the workforce or continue their education. Most continue their education in the form of graduate school. Although the graduate schools are affiliated with the different colleges, it is important to learn about the differences. This ... ...read more