Get a fresh taste!

Politics

The Nobel Prize and the Improper Use of Grammar

It’s interesting, the Left is actually admitting that the only reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was because he replaced George W Bush — or at least Joan Walsh does.

I am a product of the public school system. My dad was a public school superintendent. I remember school teachers telling us that grammar is important. We must understand words people use — and the way they’re used — in order to understand what someone is saying. And what they’re not saying.

I received/endured the required English grammar training of our public school system. I also took two years of French in high school and one year in college. I was fortunate to have also studied one year of Classical Greek at UNC Chapel Hill (a secular state university). Studying classical Greek prepared me for one year of New Testament Greek. Finally, I took a year of Hebrew. One of the most fascinating classes I took in seminary combined Greek and Hebrew and looked at The New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament — but that’s a side issue here.

Bottom line: I think I have a pretty good feel for how language works: nominals, verbals, conjunctions, and prepositions are grouped together and change their forms accordingly to express thought.

The process of breaking down a language in order to understand someone’s thoughts is called exegesis. The exegetical process is objective. Anyone with a handle of a language and its vocabulary can do it. Exegesis involves observation. Observation asks the question, “What is being said?” and as such, is objective. Interpretation on the other hand, is a different issue. When one takes the observation and asks, “What does this mean?” one has stepped outside the realm of observation and into interpretation.

One of the challenges of teaching the Bible is waiting to ask, “What does this mean?” until I have understood, “What does this say?” This is one of the reasons we have so many disagreements between denominations, cults, etc. “Everybody has their own interpretation” — but that’s a side issue here.

When Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, established the Peace Prize in his will, he said that it would be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Grammar is apolitical. Properly interpreting words and their use is not affected by one’s worldview. Note, I said properly interpreting.

For a moment, let’s take Obama, Bush, political parties, and worldviews out of our minds; admittedly that may be very difficult for many of us. If we set aside our differences and simply look at Nobel’s own words, the Peace Prize was to be awarded to the person who “shall have done …” Grammatically, this is called a future perfect.

The American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com defines the future perfect as, “A verb tense that expresses action completed by a specified time in the future and that is formed in English by combining will have or shall have with a past participle.” About.com says about the French future perfect, “The French future perfect is most commonly used like the English future perfect: to describe an action that will have happened or will be finished by a specific point in the future.”

I am not a lawyer. I never studied in a law school. But I know that laws are based on the proper use of grammar. The court system issues verdicts based on words, phrases, etc. That is why our laws are so verbose; lawmakers want to make sure there are no (or few) loopholes in the law.

Again, setting aside worldviews, politics and everything else that makes us different, we must all agree that Nobel’s will has been violated. Nobel did not establish the Peace Prize in his will to be awarded to some who provided a promise (or “hope” — sorry, I couldn’t resist) of future action. It was to be awarded to someone who had completed something in the future.

When Obama’s nomination was submitted, he had been the US President for only twelve days. All of us must agree that in his first twelve days of his presidency, President Obama had not, “done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

If Barack Obama is nothing else, he is a smart man. You don’t graduate from Harvard or Yale without a great deal of mental competency. Interesting, George W Bush graduated from Yale  — but that is a side issue here.

Grammatically, we must conclude that Barack Hussein Obama should not have been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. He clearly did not deserve it. As a Harvard Law School graduate, Mr. Obama must agree with these conclusions and as such, should have declined the award. That is not to say that he might qualify for it in the future; but that it yet to be seen. If someone were to sue the Nobel Prize Committee for wrongly executing Nobel’s will, they would be successful, according to the clear use of grammar.

Objective conclusion: Barack Obama did not deserve the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

He should give it back.

 

American President Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize less than 9 months into his presidency.

BHO’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was submitted within *12 days* after his inauguration! The Prize committee’s reason: “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

HUH?????

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei said, “In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself,” He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts.”

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, designated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Wow, it looks like throwing your own country (and Israel) under the bus and sucking up to known terrorists qualifies you for being awarded the Prize!

That helps clarify why terrorist leader Yassir Arafat won the award in 1994.

Promise: If I’m ever awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — and based on my observations above, that will NEVER happen — I will decline accepting it. It’s no longer prestigious; instead, it’s meaningless.

 

Disgust About the TEA Parties

Last night I watched coverage of the TEA parties by Fox News and then hopped over to MSNBC to see what Keith Olbermann would say about it.

Fox’s coverage seemed to be “fair and balanced”, while Olbermann was absolutely caustic in his coverage. I have never watched Countdown show. Over the past months I have heard Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin talk about Olbermann’s political bias and how it comes out in his show.

After hearing Rush Limbaugh attemtping to describe “teabagging” per the Urban Dictionary, I (unfortunately) looked up the definition on the ‘net last night. On a whim, I went to MSNBC’s site this morning and listened again to Olbermann’s coverage.

Having read the definition, I was absolutely disgusted with Olbermann’s voluminous couched references to the act in his coverage of the TEA parties. He was equally vulgar in his choice of comments by the TEA party participants that he twisted to make them appear to say things they were definitely NOT saying.

For this reason, TEA party supporters should do all they can to refuse to wear the label of “teabaggers” and assembling as “teabaggers”.

I don’t know why I should be amazed at this. However, it’s an answer to a prayer I’ve had for some time: Lord expose biases and connections.

 

The “Freedom of Choice” Act

A few days ago, we “celebrated” the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision known as Roe v. Wade.

In light of that anniversary and the stances taken by the new presidential administration, I thought I’d share with you an email I received from a good friend, Duncan Brannan. Because Duncan was so clear in his explanation of the issues, I have included it in its entirety with minimal edits. Granted, it is lengthy. But it’s worth reading!

I completely agree with Duncan’s remarks about this not being a “political” issue. This is by all definitions, a Kingdom of God issue. As such we dare not shy away from it.

—–

Standing before Pontius Pilate, our Master said,
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” — Jn. 18:36-37 ESV

With these words, Jesus clarified the nature of our warfare in this world, something the Apostle Paul said in these words,
“For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.” — Eph. 6:12

I say all of this because there are those in the public spectrum and even in the Christian sector who would mistakenly dub what I am doing today as a “political statement.” Point of fact, it is not. It is a matter of the Kingdom of God because it concerns life — specifically the life of the unborn, which Father deems sacred. If our current president was about to sign a bill into law, or if our current Congress was considering a bill that would forever redefine marriage in this country as “anything goes”, this would still not be a political message. Why? Because marriage was God’s idea, His institution — not man’s. And so was LIFE… and that is why I’m coming to you today.

Our current president has demonstrated from day one of his administration a clear agenda to undo all restraints on abortion, though he himself claims to support life. The Freedom of Choice Act, if implemented, will be the most radical abortion agenda this nation has ever seen in its brief history:

1.) Our country’s tax dollars will be funding more abortions — both here and overseas — than ever before…

2.) 38 states’ bans on the abomination called “partial birth abortion” would be instantly overturned… (Because of technology and the media, every one of us now knows what happens to an infant in this “procedure” that comes straight out of the mouth of hell — and, no, I do not hesitate for a moment to use those exact words! If I were testifying before Congress, I would use these words and more.)

3.) 44 states’ laws governing parental involvement would be removed… (Think about that for a moment. God forbid that one of our children would ever be sitting one day in an abortion clinic with a “counselor” considering an abortion. But God forbid further that the government would pass a law standing behind someone who ever looked one of our daughters in the eye and said, “No, honey. We don’t need to notify your parents. They don’t even have to know we ever had this conversation.” I am not prepared to give up that right, and I am not prepared to watch my fellow countrymen relinquish it quietly either. Are you?!)

4.) 40 states’ laws that signficantly restrict late-term abortions would be lifted… (In my estimation, “late-term” abortions means only two things: a.) More unborn children will be murdered and b.) because of their stage of development, they will be more able to feel and experience the horrors being inflicted upon them.)

5.) 46 states’ laws protecting an individual health care provider’s right to deny an abortion on the grounds of conscience… (Think about the doctor, the nurse who says, “This violates my conscience,” or “I can’t do this. It goes against everything I believe.” Then think about our president saying, “Sorry, fella! Your feelings, or opinions, or beliefs, or religious convictions don’t have anything to do with it. You do this or you’re out of a job! You provide these over the counter “morning after” pills or you can go work for another pharmacy. You monitor the drip on this anesthesia or you’ll never work in another hospital.” etc., etc, etc.)

And this is just the beginning, men and women of God! Also at stake are:

6.) 27 states’ laws protecting institutions with a “conscience” policy. (There you go: one of the most fundamental Constitutional rights — conscience — thrown out the window. Why? Because “it’s not about YOU. It’s all about ME! What I want and when I want it, and YOU have to give it to me.”)

7.) 28 states’ laws requiring a mandatory waiting period before an abortion. (No waiting period whatsoever. Essentially, we’ll have an Abortion Express Lane!)

8.) 16 states’ laws which mandate that an ultra-sound be performed before an abortion (After all, we can’t have people experiencing a possible attack of conscience, or maybe actually believing that this is a child — not a “fetus”, or “inviable embryo” — whose life they’re about to take!)

9.) 33 states’ laws requiring counseling before an abortion. (Unbelievable! “Let’s make this process as easy and as inhumane as possible.” That’s precisely what the president’s agenda says.)

10.) All 50 states’ reporting requirements on abortion. (Before you pass on this one, pay close attention: Notice who the States are REQUIRED to report to, instead of Vice Versa. Our Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Did you catch that? This is amazing! Our president is making a HUGE power grab here. He is turning the Constitution upside down saying, “You States will report to us on this!” Excuse me! NO. Not the way it works. You, the public servant, sir… you madam congresswoman… you, mister supreme court justice, etc… you report to us — not the other way around and what rights are not delegated to the power of government belong to US the people, not YOU — the ruler.)

So, there we have it.

I am asking you as children of the Kingdom of God to make your voice heard — for our King and for His “orphans”, the millions of unwanted babies awaiting abortion in this country. I have personally sponsored a petition against the Freedom of Choice Act. (You will notice my name at the top of the page.) If you would please, click on the link below, and complete the form.

http://www.libertyaction.org/297/petition.asp?PID=19484923&NID=1

After signing the petition, you will be presented with an opportunity to make a donation. If you are not interested, simply click the “x” button to close the window.

This is what our responsibility is about — defending widows and orphans (James 1:27). But here, the “widows” are women whose hearts are blinded by the god of this age and teenage daughters who won’t have to wait at all, get any type of counseling, listen to a heartbeat, or even pick up the phone to let us know what they’re about to do. And here the orphans are… well, they’re too young to ask for our help. But, God help us if we ignore their cry because it will scream to God from the dust far louder than Abel’s blood ever did!