Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
12 Oct, 15 > 18 Oct, 15
31 Dec, 12 > 6 Jan, 13
9 Jan, 12 > 15 Jan, 12
29 Aug, 11 > 4 Sep, 11
8 Aug, 11 > 14 Aug, 11
1 Aug, 11 > 7 Aug, 11
18 Jul, 11 > 24 Jul, 11
18 Apr, 11 > 24 Apr, 11
24 Jan, 11 > 30 Jan, 11
27 Dec, 10 > 2 Jan, 11
13 Dec, 10 > 19 Dec, 10
1 Nov, 10 > 7 Nov, 10
11 Oct, 10 > 17 Oct, 10
27 Sep, 10 > 3 Oct, 10
20 Sep, 10 > 26 Sep, 10
13 Sep, 10 > 19 Sep, 10
6 Sep, 10 > 12 Sep, 10
30 Aug, 10 > 5 Sep, 10
23 Aug, 10 > 29 Aug, 10
16 Aug, 10 > 22 Aug, 10
9 Aug, 10 > 15 Aug, 10
26 Jul, 10 > 1 Aug, 10
28 Jun, 10 > 4 Jul, 10
21 Jun, 10 > 27 Jun, 10
31 May, 10 > 6 Jun, 10
24 May, 10 > 30 May, 10
17 May, 10 > 23 May, 10
26 Apr, 10 > 2 May, 10
19 Apr, 10 > 25 Apr, 10
29 Mar, 10 > 4 Apr, 10
22 Mar, 10 > 28 Mar, 10
8 Mar, 10 > 14 Mar, 10
25 Jan, 10 > 31 Jan, 10
18 Jan, 10 > 24 Jan, 10
28 Dec, 09 > 3 Jan, 10
21 Dec, 09 > 27 Dec, 09
23 Nov, 09 > 29 Nov, 09
12 Oct, 09 > 18 Oct, 09
5 Oct, 09 > 11 Oct, 09
21 Sep, 09 > 27 Sep, 09
7 Sep, 09 > 13 Sep, 09
10 Aug, 09 > 16 Aug, 09
20 Jul, 09 > 26 Jul, 09
22 Jun, 09 > 28 Jun, 09
25 May, 09 > 31 May, 09
18 May, 09 > 24 May, 09
11 May, 09 > 17 May, 09
4 May, 09 > 10 May, 09
27 Apr, 09 > 3 May, 09
13 Apr, 09 > 19 Apr, 09
6 Apr, 09 > 12 Apr, 09
9 Mar, 09 > 15 Mar, 09
2 Mar, 09 > 8 Mar, 09
23 Feb, 09 > 1 Mar, 09
16 Feb, 09 > 22 Feb, 09
2 Feb, 09 > 8 Feb, 09
26 Jan, 09 > 1 Feb, 09
19 Jan, 09 > 25 Jan, 09
12 Jan, 09 > 18 Jan, 09
5 Jan, 09 > 11 Jan, 09
22 Dec, 08 > 28 Dec, 08
15 Dec, 08 > 21 Dec, 08
8 Dec, 08 > 14 Dec, 08
24 Nov, 08 > 30 Nov, 08
17 Nov, 08 > 23 Nov, 08
10 Nov, 08 > 16 Nov, 08
3 Nov, 08 > 9 Nov, 08
27 Oct, 08 > 2 Nov, 08
20 Oct, 08 > 26 Oct, 08
13 Oct, 08 > 19 Oct, 08
6 Oct, 08 > 12 Oct, 08
22 Sep, 08 > 28 Sep, 08
15 Sep, 08 > 21 Sep, 08
8 Sep, 08 > 14 Sep, 08
1 Sep, 08 > 7 Sep, 08
25 Aug, 08 > 31 Aug, 08
18 Aug, 08 > 24 Aug, 08
11 Aug, 08 > 17 Aug, 08
28 Jul, 08 > 3 Aug, 08
21 Jul, 08 > 27 Jul, 08
14 Jul, 08 > 20 Jul, 08
30 Jun, 08 > 6 Jul, 08
26 May, 08 > 1 Jun, 08
19 May, 08 > 25 May, 08
14 Apr, 08 > 20 Apr, 08
17 Mar, 08 > 23 Mar, 08
3 Mar, 08 > 9 Mar, 08
25 Feb, 08 > 2 Mar, 08
18 Feb, 08 > 24 Feb, 08
11 Feb, 08 > 17 Feb, 08
4 Feb, 08 > 10 Feb, 08
28 Jan, 08 > 3 Feb, 08
21 Jan, 08 > 27 Jan, 08
7 Jan, 08 > 13 Jan, 08
24 Dec, 07 > 30 Dec, 07
3 Dec, 07 > 9 Dec, 07
12 Nov, 07 > 18 Nov, 07
5 Nov, 07 > 11 Nov, 07
8 Oct, 07 > 14 Oct, 07
1 Oct, 07 > 7 Oct, 07
17 Sep, 07 > 23 Sep, 07
10 Sep, 07 > 16 Sep, 07
27 Aug, 07 > 2 Sep, 07
23 Jul, 07 > 29 Jul, 07
9 Jul, 07 > 15 Jul, 07
25 Jun, 07 > 1 Jul, 07
18 Jun, 07 > 24 Jun, 07
11 Jun, 07 > 17 Jun, 07
28 May, 07 > 3 Jun, 07
21 May, 07 > 27 May, 07
14 May, 07 > 20 May, 07
30 Apr, 07 > 6 May, 07
23 Apr, 07 > 29 Apr, 07
16 Apr, 07 > 22 Apr, 07
2 Apr, 07 > 8 Apr, 07
26 Mar, 07 > 1 Apr, 07
12 Mar, 07 > 18 Mar, 07
5 Mar, 07 > 11 Mar, 07
26 Feb, 07 > 4 Mar, 07
12 Feb, 07 > 18 Feb, 07
5 Feb, 07 > 11 Feb, 07
29 Jan, 07 > 4 Feb, 07
11 Dec, 06 > 17 Dec, 06
27 Nov, 06 > 3 Dec, 06
20 Nov, 06 > 26 Nov, 06
13 Nov, 06 > 19 Nov, 06
6 Nov, 06 > 12 Nov, 06
30 Oct, 06 > 5 Nov, 06
23 Oct, 06 > 29 Oct, 06
2 Oct, 06 > 8 Oct, 06
25 Sep, 06 > 1 Oct, 06
18 Sep, 06 > 24 Sep, 06
11 Sep, 06 > 17 Sep, 06
4 Sep, 06 > 10 Sep, 06
12 Jun, 06 > 18 Jun, 06
5 Jun, 06 > 11 Jun, 06
17 Apr, 06 > 23 Apr, 06
27 Mar, 06 > 2 Apr, 06
20 Mar, 06 > 26 Mar, 06
13 Mar, 06 > 19 Mar, 06
6 Mar, 06 > 12 Mar, 06
27 Feb, 06 > 5 Mar, 06
20 Feb, 06 > 26 Feb, 06
13 Feb, 06 > 19 Feb, 06
16 Jan, 06 > 22 Jan, 06
2 Jan, 06 > 8 Jan, 06
26 Dec, 05 > 1 Jan, 06
19 Dec, 05 > 25 Dec, 05
12 Dec, 05 > 18 Dec, 05
5 Dec, 05 > 11 Dec, 05
28 Nov, 05 > 4 Dec, 05
21 Nov, 05 > 27 Nov, 05
14 Nov, 05 > 20 Nov, 05
7 Nov, 05 > 13 Nov, 05
31 Oct, 05 > 6 Nov, 05
17 Oct, 05 > 23 Oct, 05
10 Oct, 05 > 16 Oct, 05
3 Oct, 05 > 9 Oct, 05
19 Sep, 05 > 25 Sep, 05
12 Sep, 05 > 18 Sep, 05
5 Sep, 05 > 11 Sep, 05
29 Aug, 05 > 4 Sep, 05
15 Aug, 05 > 21 Aug, 05
8 Aug, 05 > 14 Aug, 05
1 Aug, 05 > 7 Aug, 05
18 Jul, 05 > 24 Jul, 05
11 Jul, 05 > 17 Jul, 05
4 Jul, 05 > 10 Jul, 05
27 Jun, 05 > 3 Jul, 05
20 Jun, 05 > 26 Jun, 05
13 Jun, 05 > 19 Jun, 05
6 Jun, 05 > 12 Jun, 05
23 May, 05 > 29 May, 05
16 May, 05 > 22 May, 05
9 May, 05 > 15 May, 05
2 May, 05 > 8 May, 05
18 Apr, 05 > 24 Apr, 05
4 Apr, 05 > 10 Apr, 05
21 Mar, 05 > 27 Mar, 05
14 Mar, 05 > 20 Mar, 05
7 Mar, 05 > 13 Mar, 05
28 Feb, 05 > 6 Mar, 05
14 Feb, 05 > 20 Feb, 05
7 Feb, 05 > 13 Feb, 05
31 Jan, 05 > 6 Feb, 05
24 Jan, 05 > 30 Jan, 05
10 Jan, 05 > 16 Jan, 05
3 Jan, 05 > 9 Jan, 05
20 Dec, 04 > 26 Dec, 04
13 Dec, 04 > 19 Dec, 04
6 Dec, 04 > 12 Dec, 04
15 Nov, 04 > 21 Nov, 04
8 Nov, 04 > 14 Nov, 04
1 Nov, 04 > 7 Nov, 04
18 Oct, 04 > 24 Oct, 04
11 Oct, 04 > 17 Oct, 04
4 Oct, 04 > 10 Oct, 04
27 Sep, 04 > 3 Oct, 04
13 Sep, 04 > 19 Sep, 04
6 Sep, 04 > 12 Sep, 04
30 Aug, 04 > 5 Sep, 04
16 Aug, 04 > 22 Aug, 04
9 Aug, 04 > 15 Aug, 04
2 Aug, 04 > 8 Aug, 04
26 Jul, 04 > 1 Aug, 04
19 Jul, 04 > 25 Jul, 04
5 Jul, 04 > 11 Jul, 04
28 Jun, 04 > 4 Jul, 04
21 Jun, 04 > 27 Jun, 04
14 Jun, 04 > 20 Jun, 04
7 Jun, 04 > 13 Jun, 04
31 May, 04 > 6 Jun, 04
24 May, 04 > 30 May, 04
10 May, 04 > 16 May, 04
3 May, 04 > 9 May, 04
26 Apr, 04 > 2 May, 04
12 Apr, 04 > 18 Apr, 04
5 Apr, 04 > 11 Apr, 04
29 Mar, 04 > 4 Apr, 04
22 Mar, 04 > 28 Mar, 04
15 Mar, 04 > 21 Mar, 04
1 Mar, 04 > 7 Mar, 04
23 Feb, 04 > 29 Feb, 04
9 Feb, 04 > 15 Feb, 04
2 Feb, 04 > 8 Feb, 04
26 Jan, 04 > 1 Feb, 04
19 Jan, 04 > 25 Jan, 04
12 Jan, 04 > 18 Jan, 04
5 Jan, 04 > 11 Jan, 04
29 Dec, 03 > 4 Jan, 04
22 Dec, 03 > 28 Dec, 03
1 Dec, 03 > 7 Dec, 03
24 Nov, 03 > 30 Nov, 03
10 Nov, 03 > 16 Nov, 03
3 Nov, 03 > 9 Nov, 03
27 Oct, 03 > 2 Nov, 03
20 Oct, 03 > 26 Oct, 03
13 Oct, 03 > 19 Oct, 03
6 Oct, 03 > 12 Oct, 03
29 Sep, 03 > 5 Oct, 03
8 Sep, 03 > 14 Sep, 03
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
LarryNaselli.com
Thursday, January 8, 2004
A Man For All Seasons
TIME Magazine reportedly offered its Man of the Year distinction to Donald Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld declined. I must admit that I mis-judged TIME Magazine in my December 31, 2003 Post, in which I speculated that TIME named "The American Soldier" as Man of the Year because TIME could not bear to credit Rumsfeld as the individual responsible for the most important World event of 2003. Apparently TIME was willing to give the credit, but Rumsfeld wasn't willing to take it. My apologies to TIME Magazine.

The incident gives some insight into what makes the man tick. Rummy did not decline the honor simply out of humility, although that may have been a factor. Rumsfeld exhibits an impressive lack of fear of Washington's ruling elites because he refuses to let them "make" him; therefore they do not have the power to "break" him either. The Secretary of War doesn't need the job, nor the applause of the media and political elites whose approbation is the coin of the realm for most public figures.

Rumsfeld has spent enough time in government to know how the game is played, but at some critical point in his career he must have decided to be his own man, no matter what. That's just the kind of man that can be trusted with leadership of the Defense Department in these perilous times. In fact, Man of the Year is too small a designation for Donald Rumsfeld, since he surely is a man for all seasons.

Posted by larry_naselli at 8:56 AM CST
Updated: Friday, January 9, 2004 5:20 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
MAN OF THE YEAR
Following are the ten runners up, and the winner of the highly coveted LarryNaselli.com 2003 Man of the Year Award. The runners up are listed in no particular order.

The Runners Up:

Tony Blair - It had appeared that the last trace of Churchill's Britain had vanished with the retirement of Lady Thatcher -- not so. Tony Blair, defying his own Labor Party and his own image as a Clinton-style "third-way" politician, was truly courageous and eloquent (anything said with an English accent sounds eloquent, but Blair actually was!) in his support of the U.S. war to liberate Iraq, in particular, and the War on Terrorism generally. It may yet cost him his job to have done the right thing, but Blair's bracing of himself and standing to his duty was England's finest hour in a generation.

Arnold Schwarzenegger - For bursting upon the political scene to confound the ruling elites, by capturing the Governorship of the Nation's largest State, in the most significant "throw the bums out" election since 1994.

Saddam Hussein - The craven surrender of Saddam to Fourth Infantry Division GI's, who cornered the former dictator hiding in a spider hole, was the best war news since the overthrow of Hussein's despotic rule, yet the Western Media did not exhibit their usual exultation at the bringing low of the high and mighty when Saddam was at last rounded up. Although this monster certainly dominated headlines in 2003, Saddam lost his chance to be man of the year by choosing discretion over his own frequently offered exhortations to Iraqis to fight the Americans to the death.

The Suicide Bomber - These followers of that "Religion of Peace" grabbed plenty of headlines during 2003. Fortunately, the most virulent strain among them lost a major source of funding, when the United States brought long-overdue regime change to Iraq, thus drying up Saddam's subsidies to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists.

The calculated mass slaughter of innocents is a crime so heinous that no civilized human being could approve it, which explains why Palestinian suicide bombers enjoy such high regard among the elites of Hollywood and Old Europe, and on the "Arab Street."

Judge Roy Moore - For fighting a nearly hopeless, but heroic, rearguard action against judicial tyranny and the subjugation of the States by the Central Government. If America one day recovers Constitutional representative self-government, Roy Moore should be remembered as the "Morning Star" of that revival, who not only recognized the Constitutional issues at stake, but took a courageous and costly stand on principle, so unusual that even his obvious natural allies mostly failed to grasp the point of Moore's defiance.

The American Fighting Man - TIME Magazine made a worthy choice, but mainly because they could not bear to acknowledge either Donald Rumsfeld or George W. Bush as the individual responsible for the most significant world event of 2003, the Liberation of Iraq.

George W. Bush - For dissing the so-called "International Community," i.e. The UN, France, Germany and the Democrat Party, and pursuing the War on Terror despite the treacherous interference of all of the above.

Donald Rumsfeld - The Secretary of War defied the experts with his Iraq invasion strategy, and achieved one of the signal military conquests of modern history.

The Queer - Speaking of signal conquests, the advances achieved by radical homosexuals during 2003 are stunning in their scope and depth. These gains have been made at the expense of America's moral fabric and of representative government. 2003 was a extraordinary year for homosexual activists to force their agenda forward, in spite of the will of The People, and their most effective weapon in so doing was my next runner up.

The Activist Judge - Judicial Activism flourished during 2003, in a raw exercise of power that calls to mind Lincoln's warning that if the Court can throw out the laws passed by The People's elected representatives, The People are not their own rulers.

Sodomy, Affirmative Action, Terrorists, The Pledge of Allegiance, Enemy Captives, Free Speech in Election Campaigns, Voting Machines and The Ten Commandments were prominent among the subjects on which Activist Judges rendered outrageous decisions, based on various combinations of bad constitutional law, their own opinions and foreign Constitutions. It was a dark year for the American Experiment in representative self-government, thanks to the domination of The Activist Judge.

And my choice for MAN OF THE YEAR 2003 is:

Howard Dean - The man who is likely to carry the Democrat Party to oblivion. I love this guy!

For forty years, the only effective strategy Democrats have found for winning the Presidency has been for their candidate to trick the electorate into believing he is some variety of Conservative/Moderate/Centrist. Whenever the Democrat has openly confessed to Liberalism, he has gone down in flames, usually with considerable collateral damage in Congress, Governorships and State Legislatures. Howard Dean is not only an unreconstructed Leftist, like Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but like big-time losers Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and George McGovern, Dean makes no serious effort to conceal it.

Dean has been a dominant figure in the news of 2003, and he is the embodiment of a movement that promises to be one of the most significant of this century, namely the movement of the once-great Democrat Party over the Left-most precipice of American Politics. Years from now we may look back on the nomination of Howard Dean as the crisis point in a seismic political re-alignment.

In honor of my Man of the Year, I herewith re-post a poem I composed when Dr. Dean claimed that he supports our troops more than President Bush does, which prompted me to throw my support to Howard Dean:


I'm supporting Howard Dean in his run for President
I'm behind his no-good candidacy one-hundred percent

Oh, I'd never send him money, plant a sign or knock on doors,
But I'm standing right beside the candidate you may be sure.

Well, I'll say and do just anything to see that Howard flops
And I'll vote against him cause I know that Howard must be stopped

But I truly do support him, yes I look on him with pride
And although I wish him failure, I still stand by Howard's side

No, I haven't got a single thing to say about him good
But I pray for Howard Dean and I support him as I should

Yes, I know you'll think I spoof or my endorsement is an "oops"
But I am supporting Dean the same way Dean supports our troops




Posted by larry_naselli at 12:33 PM CST
Updated: Monday, January 5, 2004 9:43 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, December 29, 2003
Whatever Happened to the G-Word?
John Kerry's sophomoric outburst of F-word profanity, apparently intended to woo the teenie-bopper vote, and Wesley Clark's braggertly use of the S-word, to cow imaginary impugners of his battlefield valour, both are interesting primarily as potential specimens for a psychiatric seminar; but, another candidate's speech patterns deserve far more political curiosity: Why doesn't Joe Lieberman use the G-word anymore?

Candidate Al Gore chose Lieberman as his 2000 running mate, amidst Democrat Strategists' fears that the Democrats had "lost God" to the Republicans, and the consequent felt need to reclaim the Party's affinity with voters of faith. So, America met a Vice Presidential Candidate who could scarcely complete a sentence without mentioning God. Lieberman's G-word profusion was comical to anyone who pays close attention to politics, but to the occasional and casual observer Lieberman seemed a soothing antidote to fears of Democrat hostility to religion.

Since I have no window to look into Senator Lieberman's soul, I won't attempt to ascertain whether he was sincere in his obsessive use of the G-word in 2000; but comparing Lieberman's current speech patterns to three and one-half years ago, I can pronounce the Senator completely cured of God-speak.

Now, is Lieberman's former God-consciousness a condition from which one should want to be cured? Evidently that depends on who one is trying to impress. In 2000, a God-fearing general electorate, suspicious of Democrats' attitude toward people of faith, might have been comforted by Lieberman's identification with them, but the Democrat Left-wing Activist Base that chooses the Party's Presidential Nominee would hardly be so accepting of a Candidate who professes that his actions are hedged by a sense of accountability to God.

While there is nothing reprehensible about a candidate emphasizing different issues before different audiences, the very point of Lieberman's G-word mania in the 2000 campaign was to illustrate to the American People that he is a man motivated and restrained by his faith in and accountability to God. This intimation had considerable success in winning the trust of religious voters, so since Lieberman has now lost his taste for the G-word, we may reasonably inquire whether he was being insincere in 2000 or now? A man who makes pretensions about his faith in God is a fraud, unworthy of anyone's confidence; on the other hand, if Lieberman was sincere then and now, we must conclude that the candidate no longer looks to Heaven for his guiding light, in which case Americans of faith have no particular reason to trust him.

Perhaps some day a reporter on the Lieberman campaign trail will get around to asking the Senator whatever happened to the G-word. The change in Lieberman's vocabulary from the 2000 campaign to this one is at least as telling as the more rigorously reported foul language of Kerry and Clark.

Posted by larry_naselli at 8:32 AM CST
Updated: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:27 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Caroling
This Christmas Eve, as is our custom, our family went from door to door in our neighborhood, singing Christmas Carols. We moved to a new home last year, so I especially savored the surprise of our new neighbors when they opened their front doors just as we burst into song. It is a time of broad smiles. In fact, whenever I hear the sound of Christmas Carols it stirs up wonderful memories of my childhood on the South Side of Chicago, when all the kids on my block would go from house to house singing Carols to our neighbors.

It hasn't been all that long since I was a little boy, but it appears to me that the times have changed, so that I rarely see or hear Christmas Carolers going door to door anymore. One thing has not changed, however, the words of these songs still carry the most powerful message of good news that has ever been told. That good news is that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, Jesus, to save us from our sins and give us eternal life.

Let me encourage you to sing the Carols of Christmas with your family this season. Most of us are familiar with the tunes of these songs, having heard them all our lives at Christmas time, so let the music touch your heart, and listen carefully to the words of all the verses. Sometimes you have to keep going to the third or fourth verse to discover the message of the song; it's always worth the wait, because the message is good news -- the best news you could hear this Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Posted by larry_naselli at 4:40 PM CST
Updated: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:07 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Of Tax Cuts and Flak Jackets
Against the backdrop of continued deadly attacks on our troops in Iraq, a favorite talking point of Democrats is that tax cuts for the rich could have been used to buy flak jackets for our troops. Not that any Democrat is proposing a boost in military spending, but the specious association of tax cuts with American casualties is the best Democrats can come up with.

No bounty of flak jackets will make the American economy roar, but tax cuts are once again proving quite effective in that regard; and a thriving American economy provides an abundance of revenue for Congress to dispose. That being so, is there any reason to expect that the opponents of tax cuts would, if they had it in their power, allocate more dollars than the Bush Administration to improvements in military equipment?

In this, the disingenuousness of Democrats is too transparent to even be termed hypocricy. In it's unseriousness, the Democrats' petty gainsaying is no more than childish contrarianism, thoroughly unsuited to those who wish to wield power in the greatest nation on earth.

Posted by larry_naselli at 4:22 PM CST
Updated: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:07 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
What do you give to someone who has everything?
Have you ever found yourself at Christmas-time struggling to think of a gift for someone, because they already have "everything?" Of course, you eventually find something for them because nobody really has everything - well, almost nobody . . . what about God? If there is anybody who really does have everything, it would be God.

Just imagine trying to pick out that perfect gift for the Creator of the Universe and the "Possessor of Heaven and Earth." How about a cozy Christmas sweater? Not really appropriate since "our God is a consuming fire." Or maybe you could just slip a crisp twenty into a greeting card; except "all the silver and all the gold belong to Him;" so, it's unlikely that His heart will race at the sight of twenty bucks. Or hey, when all else fails, give Gift Certificates! But what good are those McDonald's Dollars to the One who "owns the cattle on a thousand hills" Even Marshall Fields Gift Certificates would be blas? because "the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." And don't bother with the old-reliable Blockbuster Video Gift Certificates, since "He knows everything from beginning to end." This could be one exasperating shopping trip - but maybe it's not quite as hard as it seems. As every little boy who has ever wanted to buy his Mom a baseball mitt, and every little girl who has ever wanted to buy her Dad a doll has learned, the secret to effective gift selection is to choose something they would like to have, not something you would like to have.

But how can you know what that special person on your gift list wants? Well, there are two basic methods:
(1) you take a wild guess, or (2) you let them tell you what they want. Experience has taught most of us that the "wild guess" technique is a low-probability approach to finding the right gift; but the "let them tell you" method works quite well, and can be executed with varying degrees of stealth, as the circumstances warrant. Some gift-givers prefer explicit requests, while others discreetly compile a list throughout the year by carefully listening to the expressed or implied desires of the gift- givee.

Let's employ Method (2) to find out what you could give to God that He would really like. Here are some things He has said:

"without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."

"you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength."

"God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth...for the Father is seeking this kind of worshipers."

Now, there's the start of a pretty good gift list. God wants you to Trust Him, Love Him and Worship Him. Notice, that those are all things that (by God's design) He cannot take from you - no amount of power can force you to Love, to Trust, or to Worship - you must give your Love, your Trust and your Worship willingly; and that is precisely why God treasures those gifts.

So, What can you give to the God who has everything?
Trust Him. Love Him. Worship Him. He is sure to like it!



I adapted the above, with permission, from a teaching by my friend, Kristine Aikenhead.

Posted by larry_naselli at 11:04 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, December 3, 2003
How silently, how silently...

For over twenty years I sang or heard those words in the familiar Carol, O Little Town of Bethlehem: "How silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given..." and I unthinkingly assumed that the phrase referred to the birth of baby Jesus in Bethlehem.

Then, when I was twenty-five years old, it was my privilege to observe the birth of our first child, Matthew; and it was that Christmas, as I sang those words, that I stopped and thought about them for the first time. Of all the possible adverbs I might choose to describe the birth of a baby, "silently" would definitely not be one of them.

It dawned on me that maybe I had been missing the point of the song; so I read the words carefully, and found that this old Christmas Carol had a lot more to teach me about the meaning of Christmas than I had ever imagined. Listen to the words:

"How silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given; so God imparts to human hearts the blessings of His heaven.

No ear may hear His coming; but in this world of sin, where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in."


These lyrics are not about the baby Jesus being born in Bethlehem; they are about the resurrected, life-giving Christ entering the human spirit of a person who puts their trust in Him. Although this supernatural entrance of Christ is invisible and silent, its effect is life-changing, because God comes to live in a human being. One of Jesus' names is Immanuel, which means God With Us. It is wondrous to realize that God wants to dwell in you! In fact, He created you with that very relationship in mind.

Jesus, by His death for us on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead, has already done all that is necessary to forgive your sins and bring you to God. Your part is simply to believe it, and surrender your life to Him. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord; and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9-10).

If you want Jesus Christ to do for you, and in you, that which He came to earth to do, namely, forgive your sins and come to live in your spirit as God With YOU, the last verse of the song makes an excellent prayer to receive God's "wondrous gift."

"O Holy Child of Bethlehem, descend to us we pray. Cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today.

We hear the Christmas Angel the great glad tidings tell; O come to us, abide with us, our Lord, Immanuel."


Merry Christmas!



Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli




Posted by larry_naselli at 11:16 AM CST
Updated: Monday, December 5, 2005 9:00 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
That ye might bear much fruit
Pruning shears in hand, He passes on from tree to tree
removing every shoot that isn't all that it should be,
in search of every fruitful branch and each one that's a waste,
a Husbandman determined to achieve the finest taste


John 15:1-2

Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Posted by larry_naselli at 5:36 PM CST
Updated: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:16 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, November 13, 2003
If Judicial Nominations Are Not of Vital Importance, Why Not Just Allow the Votes?
Democrats argue that the Senate is being prevented from addressing really important issues, ranging from unemployment to wartime intelligence, because Republicans have scheduled thirty consecutive hours of debate on the President's judicial nominations. The implication is that the judicial confirmations are relatively unimportant.

If they honestly consider the President's judicial nominations relatively unimportant, the Democrats can end the debate anytime, and get back to the business they claim is really important to them, simply by voting "yes" to ending debate - all the Republicans will vote with them. Bi-partisan comity will reign supreme, and the President's judicial nominees will receive an up or down vote of the full Senate, and be confirmed or rejected.

The Democrats will not do this, because the judicial nominations are extremely important to them, and their claim to the contrary is a cynical, disingenuous insult to the American People.

Posted by larry_naselli at 3:38 PM CST
Updated: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:24 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Saddam Misunderestimates
The Daily Telegraph reports that Tariq Azziz, Saddam Hussein's former Deputy Prime Minister, has told American interrogators Saddam was convinced the United States would not follow through with the threatened invasion of Iraq.

According to Azziz, Saddam's confidence was founded on assurances from French and Russian contacts that their governments would block American initiatives in the U.N. Security Council. The Russians and the French certainly lived up to Saddam's expectations, but somebody in his inner circle should have pointed out to Saddam that there's a new Sheriff in town over in Washington. Indeed, in a twisted way, the swift and relatively easy ousting of Saddam could be considered part of the Clinton legacy. Since Saddam was evidently expecting the same kind of weak-kneed response from George W. Bush that he had grown accustomed to during eight years of Clinton.

Saddam has now added his name to the long list of Bush's "misunderestimators," and if the reports of Azziz's remarks are accurate, that list would also have to include the Russian and French governments, who wrongly assumed that President Bush would not make a move against Saddam without the blessing of the United Nations.

It is tempting to think George W. Bush's enemies and detractors will eventually conclude that they would be much better off overestimating George W. than underestimating him, but it so happens that Bush's enemies are disporportionately comprised of the the self-consumed and the arrogant, so they won't.

I'm reminded of a scene in the movie The Patriot, in which Mel Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin, observes that his foe, General Cornwalis, is very impressed with his own vast knowledge of warfare, which creates in Cornwalis the exploitable weakness of pride. When one of Martin's companions opines that he would instead prefer an enemy whose weakness is stupidity, Martin pauses and replies simply, "pride will do."

Likewise, one of the best things George W. Bush has going for him is the impenetrable arrogance of his enemies, and the relative certainty that they will continue to "misunderestimate" him time and again.

Posted by larry_naselli at 10:36 AM CST
Updated: Wednesday, November 5, 2003 5:17 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
I Support Howard Dean!
After hearing Howard Dean say he supports our troops more than President Bush, I've decided to throw my full support behind Dean.

I'm supporting Howard Dean in his run for President
I'm behind his no-good candidacy one-hundred percent

Oh, I'd never send him money, plant a sign or knock on doors,
But I'm standing right beside the candidate you may be sure.

Well, I'll say and do just anything to see that Howard flops
And I'll vote against him cause I know that Howard must be stopped

But I truly do support him, yes I look on him with pride
And although I wish him failure, I still stand by Howard's side

No, I haven't got a single thing to say about him good
But I pray for Howard Dean and I support him as I should

Yes, I know you'll think I spoof or my endorsement is an "oops"
But I am supporting Dean the same way Dean supports our troops



Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Posted by larry_naselli at 11:23 AM CST
Updated: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:50 AM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink
Friday, October 24, 2003
Jesus -vs- The Pollsters
One-half of Americans believe they are going to Heaven, while only one-half of one-percent believe they are bound for Hell. This may come as quite a surprise to the One Who declared, "wide is the road and wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many there be that go that way; but narrow is the path and narrow the gate that leads to life, and few there be that enter therein."

What a stinging indictment of America's pulpits and pews. The Church is supposed to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," yet, if these polling numbers are true, the vast majority in this Christian Nation surely do not understand the rudiments of sin, salvation and damnation.

It would be comforting, in a way, to believe that this condition is the result of Christians clearly declaring Biblical truths, and Americans rejecting the message en masse; but experience, along with George Barna's surveys and analysis of Christians' attitudes and beliefs, suggests the cause of this widespread ignorance is the flaccid message of a Church uncertain of the authority of Scripture, and of even the existence of absolute truth.

Of course, there are many Christians shining the light of God's truth in the darkness, but unfortunately many more bow to the "I'm OK, You're OK" conventions of secular society. The truth however, is that I'm not OK, and neither are you -- apart from saving faith in the only sufficient substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and His bodily resurrection from the dead.

That's all considered very impolite, intolerant, and hopelessly out-of-date now, but the One Who never changes has assured us that while the message of The Cross is weakness and foolishness to those who are perishing, it is both the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation to those who believe and are being saved.

Do American Christians believe that enough to speak the truth to their neighbors, and from their pulpits? Or do we prefer the Public Relations "victory" of letting our fellows march sanguinly to a Hell they don't believe in, confident of admittance to a heaven that they will not enter, but at least unoffended by the truth.

This poll should be a wake-up call to the Church in America that we must shout from the housetops the truth about man's sin, and God's salvation through Jesus Christ. Too many Americans are dying each day, and wondering why nobody told them the truth about Hell before they got there.

Posted by larry_naselli at 12:46 PM CDT
Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:03 AM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Unpredictably, Morris Gives Predictable Bad Advice to GOP
Based on the success of Liberal Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the unusual California Recall Election, Dick Morris recommends that the Republican Party should "terminate" the influence of Christian Conservatives, in order to build future majority party status.

The usually insightful Morris must have been sucking on some toxic toes when he reached this conclusion. First of all, the Republican Party has already attained majority status, holding the Presidency, and ongoing majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, most State Legislatures and Governorships. The Republican success in changing from permanent minority status to where they are today has occurred since, and arguably because of the rise of the Christian Right in the GOP power structure.

Since 1994, in election after election at the State and Federal level, openly Pro-Life candidates have more often than not defeated openly Pro-Abortion candidates. Polling also consistently shows the scales continuing to tip in the Pro-Life direction, including among female respondents, and in States with growing populations.

Notwithstanding, it has become de riguer for pundits to declare that Conservatism is on the way out, and Pro-Life is a losing position everytime a pro-abortion politician wins an election. To reach this conclusion they must ignore the steady advance of the Republican Party from indefinite minority status to a deep, growing and active majority. Not only have Conservatives and Pro-Lifers remained at the center of influence of the Republican Party during the transition, it was their ascension to control of the party under Reagan, then Gingrich that finally rescued the GOP from the Bob Dole/Bob Michel doldrums of the 1960's and 70's.

When Arnold, a Social-issues Liberal, resurrected the moribund California Republican Party, pundits predictably raced to their keyboards to spew the conventional wisdom that a Liberal Social platform is the GOP's only hope of future success. I was only surprised to see the usually shrewd Dick Morris join the chorus of nonsense.




Posted by larry_naselli at 11:19 AM CDT
Updated: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:36 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The unpardonable sin of actually believing what one professes
Nina Totenberg's outrageous remark that "I hope [General Jerry Boykin] is not long for this world," is alternately defended on the basis that she didn't mean what she obviously did mean, and that her comments are Constitutionally protected free speech. The former explanation must have Trent Lott pinching himself, but the latter is more ironic still.

The Left-media which broke the "scandal," and has excoriated the General since, of course recognizes no inconsistency between its self-proclaimed championing of free speech, and its rejection of the General engaging in it. That's what life in an echo-chamber will do to you. What was it, after all, that led a "compassionate" Liberal, like NPR's Totenberg, to wish premature death on a decorated American military officer? General Boykin has scandalized the high priesthood of secularized America, basically by actually believing what he professes to believe . . . and saying it!

Sincere faith in God and a corresponding confidence in transcendent and objective truth are now the unpardonable sin among those who assure us there is no such thing as sin. In contrast, religion that makes no exclusive claims to truth is always welcome among our cultural and media elites, because such religion is no threat to the status quo. It is salt that has lost its savor, and it generates no discomfort to the man unreconciled to God, who should in fact be very uncomfortable. Such "a form of godliness [that] denies the power thereof" is not merely useless, it is insidious, because it gives an illusion of right standing with God, where no such right standing exists.

General Boykin has shown very bad manners indeed, with all this "my God/your God" stuff, and the fact that his statement is Scripturally orthodox is not likely to gain him supporters among the many American Christians whose noses are always pressed longingly against the window pane of secular institutions, vainly hoping for an invitation to warm their hands at the fire.

During World War II President Franklin Roosevelt routinely identified the Anglo-American war effort as a Christian cause, so it is a good measure of the extent to which Christianity has since been marginalized, that for an American military officer to state the obvious is widely considered "hate speech," and an embarrassment to many Christians. What should Christians find to apologize for in Boykin's assertions that 1. Christians believe that the God of the Bible is real, and all others are false gods. 2. the true God is greater than false gods. 3. America is under attack from a Satanically motivated ideology, namely radical Islam.

The fact is that any genuine Christian must accept two out of three of the above statements, and I would guess that most accept the third, as well. But precious few have the strength of character to despise the frowns (or for that matter the death wishes) of secular opinion-makers, by being so impolite as to say what they actually believe. General Boykin in contrast, evidently cares more for the approval of God than the approval of man.

Posted by larry_naselli at 9:57 AM CDT
Updated: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:41 PM CDT
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink
Monday, October 20, 2003
Special Friends
Recently, a family medical emergency and a celebration welcoming one of our daughters to womanhood reminded me of the priceless friendships that God has brought into our lives. Friends gathered around our family to pray for us, speak words of encouragement, and offer practical help in a time of difficulty and in a time of joy.

Such has been our normative experience with Christians for the past twenty years, and thinking about those friendships moved me to write the following verses:

The God who puts the lonely into families
and strengthens both the weary and the weak,
Who orchestrates those exquisite anomalies
such as bequeathing Earth unto the meek.

The Shepherd with that unmistaken calling
well known by all the sheep that to Him cling,
The One Who sees a single sparrow falling
and gives the barren woman cause to sing,

Who did not hold back even His dear Son but
instead so freely gave Him up for us,
will not demur to graciously provide us
with everything we've ever needed, plus!

Not least among His many benefices,
and intricately woven to His ends,
He knits the hearts of brethren close together,
and crowns our life with very special friends.



"and it came to pass...that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
I Samuel 18:1

Posted by larry_naselli at 9:12 PM CDT
Updated: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:46 AM CDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, October 10, 2003
Recall
A Recall Election is despised and feared by political elites because it denies them the benefit of the voters' notoriously short memories.

Posted by larry_naselli at 7:50 AM CDT
Updated: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:32 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
Presidential Poetry
Yesterday, Michael Medved read from a Canadian news article which mocked George W. Bush for a "roses are red, violets are blue" poem he wrote to the First Lady while she was traveling in Europe without him. W's poem to Laura was corny, unpretentious and sweet. The kind of rhyming that sets elitist eyes rolling, but which most wives would love to receive from their husband. The article quoted a University Professor, who acerbically assured the reader that Bush would not be receiving a Pulitzer Prize for Poetry.

The previous occupant of the Oval Office was very much the favorite of our cultural elites, so I began wondering what kind of poems he may have sent to his wife. I did some asking among anonymous sources close to the Clintons, and obtained a super-secret copy of one of Bill's recent poems to Hillary. I share it with you on condition that you do not weep while reading it.

Roses are red, violets are blue
if you throw one more ashtray at me I may sue!
don't wait dinner for me, I won't be home yet,
I'm stopping for Big Macs with a bimbo I met.

If you hop on your broomstick and run in `08
I'm quite sure we'll get back through that 16 Penn gate,
then like a fox in the hen-house I'll be on the prowl
`cause you'll be too darn busy to flash me your scowl.

We'll need damage control for each Bubba-esque stunt
'cause you bet as First Stud I'll be back on The Hunt,
oh, but being in charge you'll have so much distraction
that you can't interfere with my intern-ing action.


Late night TV comedians may miss the dysfunctional Clintons, but I am happy and relieved to have a conventional, loving married couple in the White House again, even at the risk of offending Canadian Professors of Poetic Studies.




Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Posted by larry_naselli at 4:58 PM CDT
Updated: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:26 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, October 5, 2003
Clark's Middle
General Wesley Clark says that, if elected President, he would nominate Supreme Court Justices who are "in the middle, like Stephen Breyer."

Justice Breyer is "in the middle"? In the middle between what, Sandra Day O'Connor and Karl Marx?


Posted by larry_naselli at 8:37 PM CDT
Updated: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:16 PM CDT
Post Comment | Permalink
The Wrong Genocidal Dictator
California Recall: With an assist from the L.A. Times, Davis reaches out to the anti-Hitler vote???

The long-anticipated dirty tricks of the Gray Davis Campaign (delivered to the voters courtesy of The L.A. Times) have reached a new low, which should surprise no one familiar with Gray Davis. But, one wonders just what constituency Davis is hoping to reach by smearing Arnold as a crypto-Nazi.

Presumably, the entire statistically significant portion of the California electorate is anti-Hitler, so I would guess that Davis is hoping to win the votes of the hopelessly credulous. Bad news, Mr. Soon-to-be Ex-Governor, by definition you already had a lock on that voting block!

Moreover, let's suppose, for argument's sake, that Mr. Schwarzenegger has very secretly harbored Nazi sympathies all these years (he is, after all, an actor; although such a convincing performance as a non-Nazi should garner a Lifetime Achievement Oscar), and let's further grant that it is noxious to admire genocidal dictators. How is it that neither The L.A. Times, nor any other Liberal organ, including the modern Democrat Party, has ever been scandalized by high-profile Liberal Democrats who have oozed admiration for the likes of Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Daniel Ortega, or Fidel Castro?

I guess that, unlike Hitler, these heroes of the Left are the "good" genocidal dictators.

Posted by larry_naselli at 4:15 PM CDT
Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:20 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Yellow-cake Journalism
Substance-free accusation against Tony Blair illustrates a repulsive trend in journalism

"Blair Knew Iraq WMD Claim Wrong, Says Ex-Aide." Thus reads the CNN.com News Headline today, and so the story passes into the public record. The only problem is that the headline and the entire point of the article is grossly misleading.

It turns out that the WMD Claim referred to is not the claim that Saddam indeed had Weapons of Mass Destruction, but merely the analysis by British Intelligence that speculated that Iraq could launch a WMD attack within 45 minutes. But to find that out you will have to read down to paragraph twelve, and then "connect the dots" for yourself.

The CNN story is drawn from a book by the former Labor Party Leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, and the conversation with Blair, which Cook refers to, is as innocuous as can be, and indicates no deception on Blair's part. "[Cook] said he asked the prime minister if he was concerned that Saddam might use chemical munitions against British troops...Blair's response was: 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use.' Cook said the prime minister's response left him 'deeply troubled.'"

What may have "troubled" Cook was the realization of how torturously he would have to re-contextualize Blair's words in order to cast them in a sinister light. For CNN the important thing about the accusation against Blair is not the relevance or veracity of the information, nor the credibility of the source, but the opportunity to perpetuate the myth -- now a Leftist article of faith -- that the Liberation of Iraq was justified by false pretenses.

The same technique was attempted without effect in The Observer's absurd, "Bush Knew" headline last year, but has since been employed quite effectively respecting the now infamous "Sixteen Words" from President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Message about British intelligence reports that Saddam attempted to obtain enriched uranium from Africa. The only reason those 16 words are infamous is that the Media and Bush's political enemies have persistently mis-represented their content -- and because Bush imprudently apologized for including them in his case for war (see my post 10/3/03 "Lessons From Nixon").

Anyone can read what The President actually said and ascertain that his statement was true, then as now (just GOOGLE "State of the Union Address" and you will be reading Bush's unfiltered words within sixty seconds), but tens of millions of voters will not look up the State of Union text, but will hear News reports refer matter-of-factly to Bush's "false" statement, or hear Democrats say "Bush lied," so eventually the truth will be completely replaced by a fabrication which, because of its constant and widespread dissemination, is effectively impossible to refute.

The reporting of both these episodes illustrates a repulsive trend in Media. Both American and British Media are stating facts in a way that is grossly misleading, and presenting analysis in the guise of fact. The journalistic dishonesty would be reprehensible enough in itself, but in these instances the results of successful journalistic deception may be catastrophic for the journalists' own Country. One could be excused for wondering whose side the BBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. are on.

The most generous construction one can put on such acts is that our News Media are copiously supplied with blind fools. The alternative is more unpleasant to contemplate, especially since it is considered bad form these days to question anyone's patriotism.

Posted by larry_naselli at 2:30 PM CDT
Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:54 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older