Wisdom Comes with Age Youth

Once again, (see previous rant here) a hidden society destroying agenda comes to light in something disguised as entertainment or advertising.

Kraft has launched a new ad campaign for their star product Miracle Whip with the tag-line "Keep An Open Mouth." The first version of this campaign features angry villagers with pitch-forks and torches converging on a colonial house. It has an intentionally distinct "Witch Hunt" tone (as is proven by the title of the ad). The door of the house is opened by a 13 or 14 year old girl. Well, here, you might as well watch it rather than have me describe it for you:



And what do we learn from this piece? Once again the youth of society are bestowing wisdom upon the aged. It is the very people in the community who should be most respected who are blinded by prejudice and rage. The youth challenges them and they answer with ignorance and hearsay. After scolding them for their closed-mindedness the youth turns and returns to the house. As the posse leaves the youngest of the adults begins to see the light.

Why does our society so worship at the alter of youth? What is it about postmodernism that it instructs us to exchange the wisdom that comes with age for the self-righteous sophomoric views that are prevalent in youth? And so the question becomes: Does the media shape our views on society or merely reflect them?

When researching this post I stumbled upon a site called The Inspiration Room. That is where I found the second installment of this ad campaign:



Surprisingly, this episode is not quite as egregious as the first. Here the person portrayed as being "in the right" appears to be approaching middle-age while the most out-spoken ignorant towns-people appear to be the political leaders. A potential redeeming aspect is that the Reverend of the community has actually kept an open mind. The manner in which the villagers react to the "MW" emblem, however, still makes it seem as though the Reverend has done something obscene, rather than leading his flock in something good and proper.

The most ironic aspect of all of this is the tag-line. "Keep an open mouth" is an obvious play on "keep an open mind." And the message is that we ought to keep an open mind regarding all things, except the wisdom and traditions of previous generations. If we aren't going to rebel against those, we should, at the very least, ignore them.

When we look around and wonder why our society shouts for entitlements, can't stay out of debt, and obeys its hormonal urges rather than controls them we need look no further than our unquestioned adoration and idolatry of youth.

Credits

The Open Mouth campaign was developed at mcgarrybown, Chicago, by chief creative officer Ned Crowley, group creative directors Dave Reger and Michael Straznikas, copywriter Tyler Campbell, and art director Brant Herzer.

Filming was shot in Romania by director Joachim Back via Park Pictures with executive producer Jackie Kelman Bisbee, director of production Lisa Burke Snyder, producer Katie Juras.

Editing was done at Whitehouse Post by producer Laurie Adrianopoli, editor Rick Lawley.

Fasting for Food

This is a new cruise ship called "The Freedom of the Seas." It holds five thousand (5000) passengers on any given trip.

What does this cruise ship have to do with World Vision's 30 Hour Famine?

In 2009 twenty-six thousand (26,000) children were dying every day of hunger and preventable diseases. In just three short years, the work of charities like World Vision has decreased that number to twenty-one thousand (21,000). Is this still twenty-one thousand too many? Absolutely! But, together, our efforts have decreased the number of senseless deaths by the capacity of this cruise ship every day! There is still work to be done.

How amazing to be able to say that you are a part of putting an end to the needless suffering of children world-wide? How can you be involved? From noon on April 13th to 6 pm on April 14th, the youth group that my wife and I lead will be participating in World Vision's 30 Hour Famine: A planned fast to raise money for this worthy cause.

That's where you come in. We would like to give you the opportunity to sponsor my wife and I during our fast. Sponsoring us at $1 per hour that we fast would feed a child for 1 month. If $30 is not an option for you, any amount that you can give is greatly and sincerely appreciated. You do not need to feel bound by the "amount per hour" model, even if you can donate $2, that is money that will help those in need. (Donations of over $30 are also welcome).

Consider this: The least expensive cruise that I could find for "The Freedom of the Seas" was $1,373. That amount of money could feed 4 children for an entire year.

We're not asking for quite that much (unless you feel so lead!). My wife and I have set a fund raising goal of $720. That's enough to feed two children for a full year (or if you prefer: 24 children for 1 month). Would you consider partnering with us? You can donate on our 30 Hour Famine website here.

If you are unable to give financially, please pray for me, my wife, my fellow leaders, and the youth that will be participating. This can be a live changing event. It truly helps to put into perspective the abundance that we are blessed with in America.

Thank you for reading this post. Thank you for visiting my donation website. And thank you for your support.

Laws, Morals, & The Constitution

As we head into this election season I'd like to discuss a realization that I've been noticing more and more: As time goes on the size of our government increases. And as the size of our government increases, the character of our citizenship decreases. What is the cause of this? After much pondering I realized that I was looking at this issue backwards. The decreasing character of our citizenry is not caused by the increasing size of government, rather the inflation of government is in response to the systematic shedding of character by the average American!

This proper view of our national situation makes complete logical sense: When people can control themselves, external control is unnecessary. When people cease to exercise self-control the governing forces must increase in order to exert enough external force to bring about the appearance of "self-control" in its citizens.

The next logical question must therefore be: What has caused the erosion of character in our nation? I believe this is two-fold.

First, we no longer encourage people to believe in an absolute morality. Earlier in our country's history our government worked to frame laws that reflected our morality. Now, we base morality on the laws our country passes! We no longer uphold a morality against which our laws can be judged. Rather, people judge morality as compared to our laws! This has been exposed most recently when Piers Morgan said to Kirk Cameron regarding gay marriage, "And yet, some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, or getting married is a sin or whatever – that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging, in a country where seven states now have legalized it." Piers is questioning Kirk's standard of morality as compared to the laws of seven states! The law supersedes, or, perhaps more accurately, dictates morality. With laws that can vacillate from administration to administration, who can determine what is moral and what is not?

Second: We have forgotten the foundation on which this country was constructed. Regardless of their personal beliefs, whether they were deists, Christians, or simply savvy politicians, the founding fathers saw the wisdom in basing their designs for a new country on the blue print of Judeo-Christian values. James Madison wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God with all of our heart." Once again, we find the urging for self-discipline which leads to a smaller government. With or without a personal belief in these values I do not understand why the majority of politicians do not strongly recommend living by these tenets. They encourage obedience, submission, volunteerism, compassion, and prayerful support of the government provided it does not contradict the law of God. What politician wouldn't want a multitude of citizens striving to uphold these virtues?

One final proof that our founding fathers believed that a society based on Judeo-Christian morals was best for all can be found in the preamble of the Constitution. This brief segment of the most important document of our government declares that two of the purposes of the government are to "provide for the common defense," and "promote the general Welfare." The wording here is intentional and not accidental. The government is not called to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. It is to provide defense. I mention both purposes as a juxtaposition to show that the mandate for our lawmakers is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. The mandate is to create an environment that encourages both micro and macro charity, enables churches and other religious institutions to provide care for the needy, helps corporations create job placement services, encourages restaurants to have soup kitchens to feed the hungry, etc, etc, etc. The forefathers were not looking to create a government that would provide these services. This just encourages people to ignore their destitute neighbor. "Don't worry about them, the government will take care of them."

The rebelliousness of human nature and the blindness of our so-called leaders to these society-building beliefs has caused what we are dealing with today: the steady and disturbing decline of individual and corporate character in our nation. In response, the continual bloating of the government in a vain attempt to create an external force designed to cause self-control which, in turn, leads to the disintegration of our civil liberties. And while the obese government may be able to prevent chaos, it is not able to compel it's citizens to care for each other and therefore, must also assume the role of provider of the general welfare.

Is there nothing that can save us from this perpetual downward spiral?

Wrongful Parents

It's been a while since something has fired me up enough to sit down and compose my thoughts. I usually prefer to respond to issues that are either egregious or have flown under the radar. The issue of this post, I believe, has done both.

A couple from Portland Oregon recently won $2.9 million dollars in a "wrongful birth" suit. That's right wrongful birth! Their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and the doctors misdiagnosed their baby as healthy during their prenatal visits. They argue that they were not given the opportunity to terminate their pregnancy due to the fact their daughter was going to be born with special needs.

After I cleaned up my vomit I sat down to write these thoughts:

First (and foremost): The Oregon department of Human Services: Children, Adults, and Family division needs to step in and immediately remove this child from that home. By the parent's own admission they do not want her. To what other conclusion can one come if these parents openly admit they would have aborted the child during pregnancy? That's only a few steps short of announcing "We would kill our child now if it were legal." If you would like to contact the Oregon DHS, you can do so at this email address: dhs.directorsoffice@state.or.us

Second: A higher court needs to overturn this travesty of a ruling. Doctors already "play it safe" with diagnosis, with referrals, with emergency room visits in a vain attempt to avoid malpractice suits. Now the misdiagnosis of "healthy" of an in-utero fetus has led to a massive award! Doctors can't even always accurately determine the gender of a baby, now we are expecting them to catch every possible prenatal complication? Consider the implications if doctors begin to "play it safe" in this arena as they do in most others: If there is even the hint of a problem, now it's a diagnosis. How many completely healthy babies will we abort because of this ground-breaking, precedent-setting decision? What are we, Sparta?

Third: I pray that this poor four-year-old girl never, ever learns how her parents got their money. Do we really believe that a person with Down Syndrome has less worth than someone who doesn't? "If you prick [her] do[es she] not bleed? If you tickle [her] do[es she] not laugh? If you poison [her] do[es she] not die? And if you wrong [her] shall [she] not revenge?" If you tell her that her parents would have aborted her if they'd known that she wasn't going to be perfect, what will that do to this poor girl who is already dealing with the fact that she isn't like everyone else?! This is where a god-less view of evolution has led us: a society that believes that a person's worth is determined solely by how we perceive "Natural Selection" would impact them. There is no God in whose image they were made. No one was "knit together in their mother's womb." There is no eternal purpose to our existence. In fact, parenthood, which ought to be the most selfless of acts, becomes something akin to buying a car. "This one's ok but I wanted one with a leather interior." What happens when their other child comes home with a C in Geometry? Do they sue the math teacher? Oh, no, they'd go after the doctor who didn't give them an opportunity to abort this less-than-perfect child.

Fourth: How is this possibly the doctor's responsibility to pay for the "additional costs of raising a special needs child?" (This was the "legal" basis of the suit.) I suppose it's more accurate to ask "How is this possibly the doctor's malpractice insurance policy's responsibility to pay for the 'additional costs of raising a special needs child?'" Down Syndrome is a genetic condition so why aren't they suing their own families? If they are serious about placing blame, they ought to be working to determine which parent caused their daughter to have an extra chromosome, and force that parent to work two jobs. Do you think the cost of health care is high now? Guess what this decision is going to do to those already sky-rocketing premiums? Sorry, Obama-care, you don't even touch this issue.

Fifth: Where is the ACLU?! The silent acceptance of the point-of-view of these parents is to encourage what amounts to nothing less than a genocide of children based solely on their disability! How is this not a complete trampling of their civil liberties?! Where is the outrage from organizations that defend the disabled? Is the ACLU finding difficulty determining which "civil liberty" they ought to defend: A woman's right to kill choose, or a fetus' right to live?

This issue is disgusting on so many levels: First, shame on the parents who brought this suit to court. Second, shame on the lawyer who put money ahead of morals. Third, shame on those that ruled in favor of these so-called parents who have forfeited their rights to their daughter simply by dreaming up this vile malpractice suit. And finally, shame on those that silently approve of the practice of killing unborn babies because they weren't "perfect." You will not find me among their ranks.

That's my opinion. What's yours?!