AJ's Blog | Theology, Politics, Culture

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:36:00 +0000

Yes, I do not write while I'm driving. This is James Scott Bell, who wrote, "Write Great Fiction, Plot and Structure," "Elements of Great Fiction, Conflict and Suspense," and, "The Art of War for Writers." And a bunch of novels. His books were quite helpful to me.

Changes

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 07:58:00 +0000

You may have noticed I updated the sidebar of the blog. I took off the "Commendations by Atheists" and the "Cumulative Case for a Creator."

Surprisingly enough, I was sad when I took them down. I saved them on my computer, of course, for old memories sake, but it was still sad.

The reason I took them down is because I've moved on to a new time in my life. The atheist/creationist/ID debate got old for me. Who knows, maybe I'll return to it someday. For those of you who've read my blog for a long time, you've seen me go from the age of the earth debate, to the God's existence debate, to some theological stuff, and finally to politics.

Apart from the blog, my interests went like this: apologetics, theology, church history/Israel history, politics.

I suppose that's life. Always changing. As far as posts on the blog go, I don't expect them to be much different. Maybe I'll post more random things and more about writing and books, but other than that it should be the same.

When I was filing the sidebar stuff, I came across these old pics.

Ahhh, yes, those pictures give me lots of good memories. Good memories aside, I've got to move on to the next things God has prepared for me.

The World of Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:49:00 +0000

Social media is crazy.

I have two twitters (that I use. I have more that I made and have forgotten to use), a facebook, a blog (this one, but I'm probably going to start another one), two websites, three youtubes, and several emails.

I'll provide links for most of this stuff in a future post.

For now, I added the link to my facebook on the side column. So check it out.

facebook.com/officialAJDiaz

Random Drumming Video

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:37:00 +0000

Because it's epic.

Also...

Because it made me laugh.

Long live Cobus!

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Political" Budget

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:09:00 +0000

As I pointed out on my twitter, why are the democrats calling Paul Ryan's budget political for the simple reason that he's trying to balance the budget and cut deficits? Why aren't the democrats' yearly budgets considered political? After all, they support programs that pay billions a year to their voters and constituencies.

Why is it when a republican wants what is best for the country, it is political and meant for votes and status? But when Obama guts the military in order to get republicans to support tax increases, it's not political.

Why is it political for a republican not to want to take more of people's money by taxing them out of house and home? But when Obama and the democrats want to raise taxes on people who can barely afford gas, it's not political. Oh, but in fact, it's decent, kind-hearted, and wonderful.

Why, when a republican exercises the much-needed foresight that lacks terribly in congress, and the White House, and the courts, he's apparently bad? Against women. He wants to kill and starve people. He hates people.

This country can't survive much longer going the way it is. Rep. Paul Ryan knows this. It's as simple as can be. Something is going to have to change, starting with deficit reduction. Tax reduction. Shrinking overreaching government. Working for the people, and not just for their votes.

Because Ryan is trying to accomplish this, the media is going to blitz him at every possibly angle. Attack him. Discredit him. They are going to go around lying to people, telling them that the republicans in congress are trying to starve them and kill the elderly.

Why would democrats do such a terrible thing?

Because they want votes. Because they have political purpose. Even while they say that Ryan has political purpose, they are exercising their political purpose. That would be nice to see democrats, rather than court the media over this, buckle up, study the bill, and work on making it even better long-term.

But we all know this would never happen in nine million years.

I Dare a Democrat to Make a Vid Like This

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:56:00 +0000

I've never seen a video like this from a democrat congressman (or congresswoman. Had to add that to save Obama from having to call all the women in America to apologize for my old-fashioned, general terminology. Oh, wait a minute, I'm not influencing the election--I'm not a threat to Obama's reelection--so I don't think he's going to care about females in this instance). Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Anyway, Rep. Ryan makes sense. See for yourself.

Kirk Cameron Controversy

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:22:00 +0000

Why is it controversial for a well-known Christian celebrity to state his opinions? He says one thing about gay marriage, exercising his freedom of speech, and the liberal media jumps on him like he's the worst thing since Hitler. They don't jump on liberals when they say wretched things against conservatives.

In just the last few weeks, Rush Limbaugh, by far the greatest talk-show host ever, and the one with the largest audience, was personally attacked by President Obama himself. Imagine if Bush did that to a liberal! The outrage that would have followed in the media would've been tremendous.

Back to Kirk Cameron. He was on a certain show to promote his movies when the marriage question came up. He stated his opinions in an incredibly nice way. And the media jumped on him. The joke is on the media, however, because his name trending all around is only helping his movie.

Oh. By the way. Kirk Cameron issued a statement the next day only reaffirming what he'd said the day earlier. That he loves everyone, and wants the best for everyone.

But that's what a conservative is. Someone who wants the absolute best for everyone.

The movie is going to be epic. Check out the official trailer:

The GOP Field

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:35:00 +0000

Despite what everyone says, I like what the GOP field has limited down to. Obviously, as you all know, I don't like Romney as a candidate. For lots of reasons. But I'm happy with Santorum and Newt. We all know Paul doesn't have a chance.

I'm really glad the GOP pulled through the winnowing stage. There were a lot of candidates I was glad to see go. And here we are, many states later, and Santorum looks like he has what it takes to beat Romney.

The problem is, for that to happen, Newt would have to drop out. (Probably) At this point, I'd say Newt should drop out. Every surge he's had so far has been short-lived. Albeit, he surges at odd times and in weird ways.

Santorum has held steady with his surge. Iowa, to the three state sweep, to nearly winning Michigan and Ohio. He was outspent by something like four times by Romney, hardly anyone knows him, and yet he's gaining ground.

The Obama people make is seem like they are afraid of Romney. As far as I'm concerned, they are afraid of every GOP candidate. However, I would be more scared of Santorum because he has what it takes to swing the largest vote in they US: Christian Conservative.

Everyone talks about going for the independents. Santorum will get enough of the independent vote. It's more important to inspire the base. He can beat Obama. I just hope republicans realize that and vote for him in the primaries.

And… Out.

Kirk Cameron's New Movie

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:43:00 +0000

Everyone should see this. I can't wait.

Presidential Primary

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:20:00 +0000

The word on the street is that Newt doesn't have a prayer against Romney. And Romney is on a runaway train to victory.

I'm not a professional commentator, and I don't have as much political knowledge as the conservative commentators. However, it doesn't seem like it's a good idea to count Newt out. Sure, it seems like he can't come back, and another Newt surge would be strange. But isn't that life. The unexpected happens all the time.

Charles Krauthammer counted Newt out once, and then Newt pulled a huge victory in South Carolina. Now, it doesn't seem like Newt can do it. But maybe he can.

I guess we'll all see soon enough.

God's Not Dead

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:05:00 +0000

If an atheist simply surrendered himself to God, humbly, in faith, he too would have God roaring on the inside. Believe it or not.

Drive-Thru Politics

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:55:00 +0000

It's amazing how much has happened since the Iowa caucuses two nights ago. Santorum lost by eight votes after some mishap (probably people cheating for moderate Romney). It didn't matter though. Santorum won in essence. He's raised millions in the last 24 hours.

Newt came in fourth after Paul who doesn't count. Perry is apparently in, and Bachmann is out.

What does all this mean?

Newt is mad at Romney, and the gloves are on. Newt doesn't want Romney to win. I think his motives are pure. I don't think Newt would mind if he lost to Santorum. But he would mind if moderate Romney won because there is no way in a million years Romney could beat Obama because Romney isn't going to swing the evangelical and republican vote. The republican base isn't going to come out and vote for him; and the church, which is a huge force in this country despite what the media says, won't come out either. (Almost exactly like McCain, who, as it so happens, has just endorsed Romney).

Meanwhile, Santorum has raised millions and has lurched in the polls. Meanwhile, Bachmann's support is going to spread to Newt, Santorum, and Perry. I have no idea what's going to happen. But I can't wait to find out.

Next, Cain announced a 9-9-9 bus tour. I'm wondering how this will affect the race, if at all. Moreover, to be honest, it doesn't seem like the greatest plan. A federal sales tax seems a little dangerous and unitarian. The states need the sales tax so they don't have to collect federal money to pay the bills. At least that's how it's supposed to be.

Perry's twenty percent flat tax is the best plan--with state and local tax deductions. It's also Biblical and precedented to work. (Remember Joseph). Santorum has a good tax plan as well. Newt has already proved he would do a good job with a record of five balanced budgets and welfare reform, among other things. All in all, these three candidates, despite what even Fox says, would do great. And they can beat Obama. Because they ARE CONSERVATIVE.

Oh, and Obama has pulled yet another extra-Constitutional scheme. But why should any of us be surprised? How can we beat him? Elect a conservative in the primaries. Obama will be beat in 2012 as long as people are constantly reminded of everything he's done (and not done) in the last four years.

Stay tuned.

That's Politics

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:08:00 +0000

Six months ago Sarah Palin was teasing a run. Later, despite what Chris Christie says, he teased a run. It took some time, but the Presidential race-field got set, including Johnson, Huntsman, and the then-popular Perry, and Herman Cain. Pawlenty was already out by this point.

But there was no not-Romney. Evangelicals fervently searched for a not-Romney, and they found Perry. Then he gaffed time and again. Perry's support jumped to Cain. And then the media tore him apart (the machine). Cain's support jumped to Newt. Immediately, Romney ran tons of ads against Newt (ahem… his superpac), and now Newt is down in the polls in Iowa.

By this time, Bachmann was abducted by aliens. She'd originally won the Iowa Straw Poll, but has since plummeted to no man's (ahem… woman's) land.

Moving on, the Tea Party couldn't find anyone to endorse. Ron Paul, though he's anti-war and racist (among other things) got support in Iowa because of a good debate performance. Yes, performance. He's a joke.

From what I've read, this race has seen the most fluctuation in a primary since Rockefeller, Nixon, and Goldwater. What's going to happen today? I have no idea. What's going to happen after today? I have no idea.

Conclusion: No one has any idea.

Second Conclusion: Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, or Bachmann would be great Presidents. Romney, Paul, and Huntsman--not so much.

180 Movie (Ray Comfort)

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:00 +0000

Have you seen 180 movie yet? A powerful documentary that just may change your mind about abortion. Enjoy. And think.

Newsboys

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:49:00 +0000

I saw Newsboys for the second time. This time, Michael Tait was lead singer. Still awesome!

GOP Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:26:00 +0000

Now that the field seems to be mostly set, I have a few thoughts.

Firstly, I'm broken by the fact that Sarah Palin isn't running. I can live with Chris Christie not running because, from what I can gather, he's a social moderate. Though his initiative to fix New Jersey's fiscal problem's is compelling.

And he's obviously better than Obama.

Since Palin isn't an option, I'd have to go with Cain. Herman Cain is strong on all conservative issues. He isn't a politician. He's happy, easy-going, clear. Stark difference from most of the other candidates.

- Newt has a bad personal history, so I'd have a hard time backing him....
- Romney seems to moderate to me, though he denies that.
- Bachmann would be great if she could get her poll numbers up, which seems kind of unlikely.
- Perry needs to articulate his answers better, but otherwise, I think he's great.
- Sanctorum is, as Herman Cain put it, "stressed." Some of the stuff he said in the Google debate scared me though. The education stuff.
- Johnson is going to balance the budget. I'm laughing because he said that every time he was asked a question. They asked him about education, and he said, "We need to balance the budget..." He's definitely smart, though. After all, he listens to Rush Limbaugh; he even used one of Rush's jokes in the debate. In Gary's defense, he later tweeted that he did get the joke from Rush's show.
- Huntsman--no way.
- Paul--no way.

That covers most of the candidates.

It's definitely going to be an exciting election. The primary, though I'd rather just get through it to the main event, will be critical to the main event. Obama's approval rating is slipping, but the man is clever, silver-tongued, and scary. He does a good job at swinging the poor vote (you know, promising to give poor people all the rich people's money).

Thus, if we don't have a strong fiscal and social conservative I don't think we can beat Obama. Which is why I like Herman Cain. Or Bachmann.

All this is why the primaries will be exciting. I can't wait. And until then, you know I'll be praying...

Palin and Rice

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:26:00 +0000

Seriously?

It would take a sufficiently talented idiot to believe that rumor.

Unfortunately, democrats do exist.

Palin in Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:34:00 +0000

Astronauts and Asteroids

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:04:00 +0000

Say that five times fast.

I just read an article in the news about NASA considering sending astronauts to an asteroid. The old-school astronauts say it would be more beneficial to go to the moon again. Maybe. An asteroid mission seems pretty daring to me.

One of the main lines of the article (I can't remember the wording exactly) said we may learn something important that can protect us from asteroids later. Maybe. It continued to say something about us doing better than the dinosaurs.

I can see the conference now: A broad-shouldered man in a blue suit, front pockets shining from hard-earned flashy medals, is walking alongside a long table and says, "Men, we are sending you to an asteroid. You may die. You may never see your families again. But we might learn something important. Something that might save humankind. Men, we are going to outsmart the dino's."

That's right. Barney is going down.

Okay, you're right, that was dumb. But the point is whoever wrote that article might want to research his dinosaur history. Because evolutionists have no clue what happened to the dinosaurs. Asteroids? Please. A kindergartner probably came up with that one.

Another Update...

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:21:00 +0000

Wow, I forgot to post on 4th of July. Hey, at least I tweeted. This summer was much busier than I ever expected it to be. Just finished a week of VBS, in which I helped out with tech stuff. And you know something weird; it was my first VBS, which is surprising considering I've grown up in church and been a pastor's son for most of my life.

Anyway, I should get posts up sooner than later. Things in the world are quite exciting... and depressing. But in my corner of the world, exciting.

More later....

Sarah Palin Emails

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:13:00 +0000

So they came out today. Or was it yesterday? I personally don't have time to sift through 24,000 emails, fortunately many liberals are doing and have done exactly that. I'm sure the ones that are are getting paid, too.

Anyway, now that they've done the work...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56705.html

Conclusion of the emails -- Palin was a dedicated, hard-working governor.

O'Reilly, NBC, and Palin

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:20:00 +0000

http://www.billoreilly.com/b/NBC-Nightly-News-addresses-Palins-Paul-Revere-gaffe-three-nights-in-a-row/280274578091338194.html

O'Reilly points out some great facts in the article above. For example, why is Palin's comment on Paul Revere's ride such a big deal to NBC who reported it three days in a row even though she's a non-candidate. Especially considering the fact that they didn't cover any of Obama's flubs when he was a candidate. That's liberal bias. He also points out that they haven't pointed out in the last three days what historical flub she's made.

Also, it bugs me that the Palin quote never has any punctuation. It does sound like a rambling jumble of clauses because without punctuation that's what it is. Since when are quotes not punctuated? (When the liberal media wants to make a force that can beat Obama look dumb). There're no commas around the "uh's" if you read the liberal news articles. And there are no commas between the independent clauses.

People naturally speak very sloppily. In novel writing, people (even critical reviewers) who don't know what they're talking about say that you should make dialogue real, like, how people speak. But writers will tell you that's not true. Readers would get bored to death if novel dialogue was sloppy, repetitive, and wordy. Writers have to write snappy dialogue that gives the illusion of actual conversation while keeping the story moving and driving toward the climax. In fact, in screenwriting there's a rule of thumb to try to keep character's dialogue to 4 lines. And I'm not talking 4 lines on, say, Word. I'm talking 4 lines on Final Draft, which are very short lines.

The point is this. Often times, when the media quotes people, they summarize the quote, edit the quote, make it understandable. Sarah Palin answered the question kind of sloppily. Can't blame her for that. This is all she really was saying:

He... warned the British that they weren't going to take away our arms. He warned them by ringing those bells, riding his horse through town, and sending those warning shots. He was saying, hey, we are going to be secure, and we are going to be free.

So, you might ask, why do us conservatives get mad when Obama makes mistakes? Well, his mistakes speak very bad of his character. Like, when he said he was going to win the 56 states. Or addressing a man in the military by the wrong title. Or making mistakes with the Queen of England though he bows to the Saudi King.

That's not even the important stuff, like the seven times he misquoted the Declaration, leaving "Creator" out. Or the fact that he wants to give our missile defense secrets to Russia. Or the fact that he doesn't like America. Or the fact that he sat under a racist preacher for over 20 years. Or the fact that he listened to a racist pastor with his family on Easter Sunday. Or the fact that he didn't release an official Easter statement. Or the fact that he doesn't have a birth certificate (an original). Or the fact that he snubbed the Boy Scouts. Or even the first baseball pitch, for that matter.

And those are just a few of Obama's atrocities against America. And those were just a few of the ones off the top of my head.

Palin Exploiting Park Services?

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 01:40:00 +0000

The Palin bashers have found something new against her. Unfortunately it's not something like an association with a terrorist (like Obama and Ayers), or the pushing through of an unconstitutional bill (health care), or misquoting the Declaration 7 times, or not having an original birth certificate.

But it is something. You can tell they're desperate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20069807-503544.html

They are also liars. Sarah Palin got a private tour at Mount Vernon, big whoop. I was just there and, FYI, Mount Vernon is privately maintained by the Ladies Association. No tax dollars. That's what they advertise on the pamphlets when you first walk in.

While Sarah Palin says "uh" three times, goes on private tours (like anyone with money is entitled too), and makes sure security is tight, Obama wants to rewrite the Constitution and make America a socialist nation. While Palin is going around flaunting America's greatness, Obama says things like medicare and medicaid made America great. And so on...

While Sarah Palin is going on a bus tour, democrat rep Weiner is lying and doing things I'd rather not even mention; at the same time, John Edwards (dem) is on trial for using campaign funds to cover up an affair he had during his campaign against Bush.

But all that stuff is okay. Let's pick on Palin instead; after all, she only loves America and wants what is best for it. She only brilliantly fought Big Oil. She only believes in free enterprise and the Constitution.

Fortunately, though, the Palin story never really stuck. Though the media continually blasts her, she is the leading contender in the GOP primary. For the last few months the media has lied and said she was at the bottom in the polls. But that isn't true. Now they're saying she can't beat Obama.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that.

Conservatives against Palin - Example 1

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:39:00 +0000

There are so many people against Sarah Palin it's incredible. Conservatives and liberals.

There are a lot of people for her, though, don't forget that.

It seems to me, though, that people don't have any good reasons for being against her. Liberals are against her because of her policy and traditional values, ect... That doesn't make sense because liberals don't make sense. But conservatives are against her, and that makes even less sense.

So every once in a while I'm going to post things people have said against her that have no grounding, and are only said against her from that person's personal opinion and not from fact. There're many reasons people (conservatives) don't like her and among these are jealousy, the decision to dislike a fellow conservative because that's cool (old and young people fall prey to this believe it or not), dislike of her voice, speech, or use of jargon, dislike of her upbringing in Alaska, dislike of her family, and things of this like. Most people won't admit this, however, but it is very, very evident.

The majority of these people haven't read her autobiography. They don't know anything about her, and yet they make judgements. I'm not one to quote the "judge not lest you be judged" verse very often, but I think it would apply in this situation. There is not one credible reason for a conservative to dislike her, and I'm going to prove it. By showing you lame things said against her that most people automatically believe and give no thought whatsoever, because they want to believe it (many reasons for this, some listed above).

One small example of this is how conservatives bash her for picking on liberals all the time. First, she doesn't pick on people that much. I wish she did more. Up until now, Palin's FB posts were few and far between. Second, the people who make this statement violate their own criteria. If that's why they dislike Palin, they should dislike themselves. I don't understand how you can bash on someone for bashing on others??? Judge not lest you be judged.

Here's the first of many examples. This comes from a news article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/palin-rewrites-the-rules-but-is-that-enough/2011/05/31/AG0KMYFH_story_1.html

The man quoted below is a GOP strategist. Here goes.

“She just repeats what Republicans already believe, in an emotional and energetic way, true,” Castellanos said in an e-mail message. “But when she leaves, republican voters are left right where they were standing when she entered the room. She doesn’t take us anywhere. Until she does, her stature will continue to diminish, not because she is not running, but because she is not leading.”

This is a great example. If you ask someone why they don't like Palin, these are the kind of examples they come up with. Nothing on policy or traditional values. No, hers are too dead on. Nothing on past bad decisions, she hasn't made many, she's mostly done what's best for the country.

Instead, the reason is something against her... speaking?

Yes, folks, against her speaking. The same old mantra repeated in an emotional way. She doesn't take us anywhere. She's not a leader.

Most people who read this quote can't think for themselves. They're too tied up in themselves to be critical enough to see the ignorance of the quote.

Think back to all the great leaders of the past. Did they lead simply by coming up with new material? Absolutely not. They used the same old material (there is nothing new under the sun) and applied it! That's what makes a leader. Someone who, by definition, leads. They take old principles that work, that have been demonstrated to work, and make them work. George Washington did it, all the other founding father's did it, Reagan did it. What, after all, made George Washington one of the greatest leaders of all time? He had principles and he applied them. Did he invent new material and take people to new places? Not at all. He simply trusted God, and led. How about Winston Churchill? One time at a speaking engagement the only thing he said was "never give up." Then left. But no one can deny he was a good leader. He left the people in the same room without anything new. But they were inspired. They were passionate. They were roused to fight off the evil attacking their country.

Moreover, Obama is viewed as such a great leader--does he invent new material and take us to new places? No, it's the same old liberal ideas that don't work, delivered in the same old boring way. Give women a choice. Feed the starving children. Spread the wealth around.

I hope you can see the folly of this strategists comment. It would be best if he stopped talking to the press and started strategizing. And as for the rest of the Republican party, it would be best if they stopped griping against Palin for baseless reasons like the one above. (I know people who don't like her just because the media doesn't. Of course, they word it differently than this. But, still, that's what all these reasons are: dumb)

More examples to come.

Welcome to my World

noreply@blogger.com (AJ) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:57:00 +0000

Just like the next person, I am plenty interested in pop culture, and culture in general. Unlike many, I am interested because I love seeing Christian songs, books, movies and the like rise above all the other stuff. Which is one of the many reasons I love the Narnias--it's great to see works like that flourish and become the biggest books and movies in history. I also enjoy seeing decent family movies and such.

So for this post I will welcome you to my world. Here are just a few things--apart from my personal life--that excite me.

Definitely at the top of the list would be politics. The conservative revolution. Finally, people realizing what makes sense. You know that feeling when you're trying to teach someone something, and they just don't get it, and you feel like you're getting nowhere until all of the sudden--bam!--they get it. It's kind of like that. Atheists (a minority) and secularists with agendas (ACLU) who have a lot of spending money cast long shadows. Liberal political commentators cast long shadows. Late-night TV comedians cast long shadows. But that doesn't change the fact that there has been a conservative revolution. Common sense, easy-to-understand, historically demonstrated truths are finally being understood. This makes me very happy. Of course, we'll see how long this revolution lasts. History has shown people to be fickle. It's as if the American people only need to hear a Mark Antony and they're far left again. But we'll see. Anyway, the current change over as demonstrated in the last congressional election has made me happy.

More recently, all the strong and passionate conservatives running (possibly) for President. I like most of them. But especially Palin. And if not her Bachmann. And if not her, perhaps Pawlenty. It seems like we can't lose. And as long as a strong conservative, and not a moderate, takes home the primary victory, I'll be excited. I'll also be excited because I get to vote in the next election.

In the world of books, I can't wait for Ray Comfort's new Hitler book. I haven't seen any other nonfiction books that I want. I already have a lot of those to read. But a new Ted Dekker book is coming out, and I've recently become a huge fan of his books; I've read most of them. http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Books-Mortals-Ted-Dekker/dp/1599953544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306908958&sr=8-1

Also, recently his book "The Priest's Graveyard" came out and hit #8 on the New York Times bestseller list. http://www.amazon.com/Priests-Graveyard-Ted-Dekker/dp/159995334X/ref=pd_sim_b_1 It isn't a Christian book, particularly, but he is a Christian. Most of his previous books have been Christian, however, and his new ones are very clean though they aren't quite as didactic. Still, his influence is reaching new audiences and that is something that makes me happy. Here's a review from the New Yorker in an article entitled, "Fiction That Sells." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/05/fiction-that-sells-another-world-1.html

Another novel is coming out near the end of this year or early next year, I'm not sure which, from Frank Peretti, my favorite Christian novelist whose novels have sold more than 15 million. Incredible and powerful stories. Here's his site: http://frankperetti.com/ I can't wait for his new book.

Then, of course, there is Kirk Cameron and the movie on America that he is working on. Monumental projects also make me happy. http://www.monumentalmovie.com/ On a slightly different note, Growing Pains season 2 came out. It's great.

Next thing in my world that excites me: New movie from creators of Fireproof coming to theaters in September. They always do a great job. Their movies are well filmed, and the stories are powerful without being preachy. At least, that's my opinion. Check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/courageousthemovie It has over 100,000 views so far.

USA Today on "Courageous"

On a lesser note, Kung Fu Panda 2 was a great movie. I'm sure kids and adults will like it. And those of us in between. Pirates 4 was okay, but not even close to the first one. Sad.

There is also Narnia. The new one is out on DVD, and I've already watched it several more times (I watched it four times in the theaters). Walden and Fox are working out what Narnia to make next, and I'm excited no matter there decision. Walden has done a great job thus far. "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was one of the most profiting and game-changing movies in movie history, cashing in at $745 million dollars. Merchandise and DVD sales have brought that number past a billion. Isn't that exciting?!!

And last but not least, Ray Comfort. He's up to something, as most of you probably know. I can't wait to find out what it is. I'm also excited for his abortion/Hitler project and book (as I've said). (That's probably what he's up to).

There is so much more I can divulge into that excites me in the world of culture. So many bad things flourish; but so do many good things. It's those things I set my focus on. That's my world.

Maybe I'll let you know what I'm personally up to. Another time, though. It's very exciting. Life is an incredible blessing.