The Danger of Parsing the Truth

It seems that no one wants to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Instead, we hear precisely crafted statements that one can point back to and claim that the statements were factually correct.  The recent presidential press conference offers a couple of excellent examples.

“I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”

  • “from what I’ve seen” — If you haven’t seen the evidence then you can’t speak to anything regarding it such as whether it was disclosed, what was disclosed, the manner of the disclosure, and whether it had a negative impact.
  • “would have had” – limits this to a possibility of impacting something prior to this particular statement.  The disclosure could therefore have a future impact and still be a correct statement.
  • “negative” – depends on one’s view on what you view as negative.  What I see as a negative might just be viewed as a positive or neutral by someone else.
  • “our national security” – my view of “our national security” is likely different from that of the current administration.  For example, I viewed so-called Arab Spring uprising in Egypt as bad as it might result in the Muslim Brotherhood governing the country.  The President viewed otherwise.  (and how’s that working out?)

Another example is the President’s statement about Ambassador Rice’s “presentation” to the five Sunday talk shows.  He stated,  “she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.”

  • “her best understanding” – First, Amb. Rice is not an intel analyst.  (She is very smart, but she is also a political creature. She also knows how information is crafted as she was one of the area directors on the NSC during the Clinton administration – I had brief interactions with her on crafting the USG position on support for the UN sponsored Transitional Authority in Cambodia. At least during the first Bush & first Clinton terms, talking points and positions are crafted and massaged by interagency folks BEFORE going out to speak.  Of course if it was a political position then DoD and CIA are cut out.)  So was she able to ask specific questions relating to the intelligence?  Or as a political creature did she realize that as someone who was not in the loop of what actually happened (but sent to talk about it anyway) that it would be best not to ask questions? What kind of briefings did she receive and from where did they come?
  • “that had been provided to her” – Obviously this is the key wording.  If she was provided slanted intelligence to fit a particular narrative then she would have been telling the “truth” according to what she knew at that particular time even if it really was what was actually known.

Politicians aren’t the only ones who do this.  We do this when what others might think of us when the truth is spoken plainly.  Take your lumps, apologize, fix it, and move forward.


It Appears There is a Gift for Everything

Reason #42 to be a cessationist regarding NT charismatic gifts:  Prophetic Tattoo & Piercing Interpretation

As you might suspect, money is involved.

“In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history. Cessationists usually believe the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God’s purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle.
Cessationists are divided into four main groups: …”

For  the rest of the article and more resources, visit the Monergism web site (

My Top Ten Reasons To Vote Against President Obama

Rather than sound all thoughtful or such, here are my top 10 reasons:

  1. 100% pro-abortion stance to the extent he refused to vote for a bill requiring medical care to a baby born alive.
  2. Complete lack of foreign policy experience and education (living overseas as a child doesn’t count).
  3. Believes & acts as if he is above the law (numerous executive orders, disregard for Defense of Marriage Act, immigration enforcement). Rather than work with Congress to change them, he simply picks and chooses which ones he likes or dislikes.
  4. Seeks power through fear & divisiveness, particularly race and class
  5. Narcissistic behavior – It’s all about him.
  6. Zero respect for the office of the president – think of Mel Brook’s King Louis – “It’s good to be the King” scenes in History of the World, Part I .  Golf, parties, golf, talk shows, 2 years of campaigning, golf.
  7. Blames others when he is unable to achieve due to his poor policies, leadership, and incompetence.
  8. Untruthful regarding past association with domestic terrorists and radicals.
  9. Zero respect for the United States.  We bow to no one but the Sovereign God.  He represents the nation, not himself.  Granted, we aren’t perfect but name one that has made a greater positive difference to the rest of the world.
  10. Marxist elitist (I’ve reaped the benefits so NOW it’s time for change)

I could go on & elaborate on each, but you can’t refute anything on the list.  If you believe there is anything else he has to offer or can bring to the table that outweighs these negatives then please, be my guest.

Terrorist in plain sight (NY Times corrects article on his beverage)

From the Paper of Record concerning the terrorist ringleader of the Benghazi consulate attack (  ) :

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly a beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at a hotel in Benghazi, Libya. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

Guess that cleared things up quite a bit.

H/T to Mark Krikorian from the National Review Online.

Overseas Absentee Ballots

Some states just don’t get it.  According to an Army Times article, some jurisdictions in Michigan, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wisconsin did not make the deadline for mailing absentee ballots overseas ICW the Move Act.  Two of the four are swing states currently listed as up-for-grabs by Real Clear Politics.

If you are looking for your ballot from these states, contact your county clerk’s office or the board of election as appropriate.  Click on the links below to start your search.  If you are military, contact your voting officer, senior enlisted adviser, commanding officer, or legal office.

Don’t be silent if your hard fought rights are being trampled upon by EITHER party.

BTW, Michigan appears to be the least helpful.  You might be able to figure out why.

The UN Sec-General doesn’t quite get it

Sept. 19 press conference by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

All human beings have the inalienable right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. These are very fundamental rights. But, at the same time, this freedom of expression should not be abused by individuals. Freedom of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose. When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way. So, my position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act.

When the practice of one’s religious beliefs is forbidden in some Islamic nations – when even holding such beliefs is forbidden – how pray tell can you say that an “inalienable right to freedom of expression” even exists?  Two quick points:

  • The only “common justice, common purpose” of Islamic nations is the world-wide submission by any means to Allan, the false god of Islam (aka the religion of peace).
  • Since the mere existence of any non-Islamic religious expression  provokes many Muslims, does Ban believe that those religious expression no longer warrant protection?

Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon – sir, you are a dhimmi.

(h/t The Volokh Conspiracy)

But isn’t that his job?

Leave it to the NYT to bury an aide’s comment in this article what would have been the lead for anyone else.

But a campaign adviser acknowledged privately that in this election year, campaigning trumped meetings with world leaders. “Look, if he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10,” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.


Apparently there are only six breweries able to officially participate in Munich’s official celebration.  From the Local: (a Swedish-owned online German news site in English – huh?)

Augustiner-Bräu-Oktoberfestbier: 6 percent alcohol. Available in – Augustiner-Festhalle and Fischer-Vroni. The only Oktoberfest beer that still comes from wooden kegs. Everyone loves this one – except the people that prefer the others, of course.

Löwenbräu-Oktoberfestbier: 6.1 percent alcohol. Available in – Löwenbräu Festzelt, Schützenfestzelt. This one is bottom-fermented, light, sweet, and with a spicy aroma.

Hofbräu-Oktoberfestbier: 6.3 percent alcohol. Available in – Hofbräuzelt. According to the Hofbräu people, this one has a “slightly bitter taste” best enjoyed in combination with a big pile of grilled meat and dumplings.

Paulaner-Oktoberfestbier: 6 percent alcohol. Available in – Winzerer Fähndl, Käfers Wiesnschänke, Armbrustschützenzelt, Nymphenburg Wein- und Sektzelt. One reviewer said this brew was “malty, with good quilting, and a spicy finish.”

Spaten-Oktoberfestbier: 5.9 percent alcohol. Available in – Hippodrom, Schottenhamel, Spatenbräu Festhalle and Ochsenbraterei. This one is meant to be “malty, light, sweet, full-bodied, and with a light hops-bitterness.”

Hacker-Pschorr-Oktoberfest-Märzen: 5.8 percent alcohol. Available in – Festhalle «Bräurosl», Hackerbräu-Festhalle, Pschorrbräu. Described as “golden, bottom-fermented, with a malt-aroma and a very mild bitterness.”

Fixin’ to Mess Up

A lot of wisdom by a funny man.  Might be worth adding a few of my own – but I think his Rule of Thumb #4 hits the nail on the head.  If we redirect it back towards God rather than us, we would ask, “Does it glorify God?”

“You’re Fixin’ To Mess Up” by Jerry Clower

“Just recently I had the privilege of doing a show at Samford University in Birmingham. Some of the young people there said, ‘Mr. Clower, what’s right and wrong?’ Tell us, we’re young people, tell us, what’s right and wrong.

Well you ask a pretty good question.

So I worked me up a rule of thumb I’d like to recommend to my own children, and to young people.

If you’re fixin’ to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication your fixin’ to mess up. I was getting ready for a date one night when I was a little ole boy. And I walked into the side room and I said, ‘Mama, is my shirt dirty?’ She said, ‘Son, if you’re in doubt, it’s dirty. Pull it off and getcha another.’ So if you’re fixin’ to do something, and you want to know if it’s right or not, number one: do you ask other people’s opinion about it?

Number two: do you argue with yourself? Man, I have spent a million miles on the highway arguing with Jerry about I oughta do a certain thing and I knew in my heart, I was lying. So if you’re arguin’ with yourself, pretty good indication you should not do it.

Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it? Had ya just as soon for somebody not see you doin’ what it is you’d done decided is alright for you to do?

And Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’? Alright, you’d done made up your mind: you’re gonna do it. The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can ya say ‘Lord, thank ya for providing this for me. And I some kinda thank ya, for fixin’ it where I can commit to what it is I’m doin.’?

What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can ya give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’?  If you can’t, you better watch out…You’re fixin’ to mess up.”

NFL Replacement Refs and the Media Meme

I’ve always wanted to use the word “meme” as it appears to have become rather popular. All the cool bloggers use it.

Every single NFL broadcast announcer had to repeatedly follow the meme that the replacement officials were incompetent and were somehow ruining the game. Every missed call, incorrect call, minor altercation, review or slow play was attributed to incompetent officials. I even heard that someone is going to get hurt.

Seriously? Who decided that this was the storyline of the week? Are they in the pay of the NFL unions?

I thought the calls were decent. If absolute perfection is required, then lets just put a camera on each player & have an official call penalties that way. At least the announcers won’t have anything to complain about.