Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama's Tax Plan

I was going to write about this yesterday, but AT&T had a major server outage in my area, and took a ton of people offline, but we're back now.

So this issue is very simple. The American taxpayers pay all taxes. Corporate taxes are paid out of corporate profits, which are made from people buying goods and services, the price of which always go up when corporate taxes are increased. Obama has made no bones about his plans to increase those corporate taxes, but higher prices is only the beginning, because, as the cost of business gets so high that prices can no longer be raised to compensate, they will take their businesses overseas where the business climate is friendlier. This means less jobs for Americans.

Besides this, Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to end, and despite the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been vilified as having been for the rich only, they actually cut taxes on people making as little as $25,000 a year. See that? This means that his claim of nobody making over $250,000 a year, is a total lie. But the lie is even bigger than that, because the Obama plan, as outlined on his own web site, says that there would be a tax increase on the top two tax brackets, which includes people all the way down to about $185,000 a year. But even that won't pay for all of his proposed spending, meaning that he would have to raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes, and by quite a lot being that we will lose, at the estimate I just heard on the news, 6 Million in just the first couple of years, if Obama is elected.

Obama claims that he will create jobs with big infrastructure projects, but where does the money come from to do that? It can only come from taxes. And those taxes come from us, you and me. Even the "evil" rich people don't have enough money to pay for all of the new spending, even if you took everything they have. So we are going to get screwed on this if Obama is elected.

Now Obama has barred newspapers from his campaign plane, but only those who endorsed John McCain. Doesn't this scare you? It should.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

When Even The Polls Lie

According to the Pro-Obama media, the election is over, and Obama has already won, and they just point to the polls, especially the ones that they really like, to "prove" their point. The polls are questionable though.

Did you know that most of these polls over sample democrats by as much as 25%? Did you know that the more honest and reliable polls show the race as a dead heat? Did you know the election isn't over yet?

Seriously, McCain can still win. So why do they keep trying to convince you that he can't? It's simple, they want McCain voters to think that they've already lost and there's no point in going to the polls on Nov 4th. It's a sick and twisted way to suppress the vote. Don't let them do it. We've all got to vote, because the only way that McCain can't win is if McCain voters don't bother showing up.

The fact is that the McCain Campaign internal polling shows him up in 4 of the 5 most important "battleground states." That doesn't mean that McCain has a lock in those states, but certainly he can win them, if McCain supporters get out to vote. And even if you don't live in one of those "battleground states" it's still important to get out there and vote, as, if McCain actually wins the popular vote, and not just the electoral college vote, it takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of the people trying to scream that he stole the election. And who knows, if enough McCain supporters get out there and vote, we might even take some of those really close states that are considered to be hard core Obama states, wouldn't that be great.

Don't let them keep you down, let's get out there elect John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Socialism In America

When Barack Obama says, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone," Joe Biden comes out and says that Obama doesn't want to redistribute wealth. And furthermore, a reporter in Orlando asked him a question about that, and has been vilified by the Democrats and the rest of the media for daring to ask a relevant question, instead of sucking up to the Democrat nominee like everyone else does.

Obama has promised that he would give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, even though some 40% of Americans pay no taxes, so, how is this possible? It is because what Obama is calling a tax cut is actually what is known as a refundable tax credit, which means that it can be given to people who pay no taxes at all. That is the difference between a tax cut and a tax credit, and Obama is not talking about a tax cut, which, by definition, can only be granted to people who actually pay taxes. When the Government sends tax credit checks to people who have not paid taxes, after taking that money from people who do pay taxes, is redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Some people might be asking, why is that bad? OK, let's go there.

Obama has a fundamentally flawed idea of how the economy works. He says that we need to grow the economy from the bottom up, but that simply never works, it's just not how things go. This is saying that the economy grows because I go to a business and buy something from them and then they buy from their suppliers and so on, and the money flows up and everything is good, but that can only work if I have a job and someone is paying me, be it a large or small business. I can only have the money to spend if my company is making enough money to pay me. If the taxes on the company I work for are raised through the roof, they can no longer afford to pay me enough to buy the things that keep the economy running. It is a complex issue, but the fact is that if you punish the corporations, they will either downsize or leave. And I know that Obama has said that he won't allow corporations to move operations overseas, but the fact is that he doesn't have the kind of power to force Companies to not do that, and even if he did, he can't stop them from going out of business and re-establishing a new company in a Country with a friendlier business environment.

I would encourage everyone to go to www.fairtax.org and take a good hard look at the plan outlined there. It would allow everyone to keep all of the money that they earn, and pay taxes only when they spend the money on new items.

Beyond that, let's remember that it is wrong to steal money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't.

Also, I heard someone on the news saying that redistribution of wealth is a Biblical principle, so let me address that real quick. The Biblical principle is for people to live Charitably by their own choice, not for the Government to take money from people by force and give it to whom they choose. There is a vast gulf between the two ideas. Let's not get confused by the spin doctors.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Ever Just Look Out The Window And...


This picture is from a few months ago, I thought I heard a helicopter, so I looked out the door and actually saw three, so I ran and grabbed the camera and took this picture. Man, I love my 10x Optical Zoom.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Copied from "Desiring God" Blog

Desiring God Blog


Bad Times Are Good for Missions

Posted: 26 Oct 2008 01:21 AM CDT

(Author: John Piper)

I believe the Lord brought this word to mind in one of our prayer meetings on Friday:

The worst of all times is the best of all times for missions.

We were praying over Lamentations 3. Those were the worst of times for Israel. But in that moment they were given the best of promises,

The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. (3:22-23)

Today marks the close of Missions Focus at Bethlehem. So we were praying for missions. That is when this word came: The worst of all times is the best of all times for missions.

Such words do not have intrinsic authority the way Scripture does. They must be tested. Here is the truth I hear in those words.

  1. During an economic downturn we are more dependent on God. That is the most fertile soil for creating missionaries.
  2. During an economic downturn unreached people around the world do not expect you to come, but to look out for yourself. So they may more likely see your risk as love rather than exploitation.
  3. During an economic downturn those who need Christ around the world may be less secure in earthly things and more ready to hear about eternal life.
  4. During an economic downturn people at home may be wakened to the brevity of life and the fragility of material things, and so may become more generous not less. And when they give under these circumstances, it will make Christ look all the more like the all-satisfying Treasure that he is.

And so it may well prove to be that the worst of all times is the best of all times for missions.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

A Hard Fought Campaign

Last night when I went outside to leave for work I noticed that one of my John McCain yard signs was partially knocked down (I have two, it was the one that just says "McCain" my "McCain/Palin" sign was untouched). I put my stuff in the car and walked over to fix it. While I was adjusting it my neighbor came over and said that two black kids were going by and one started hitting it with a stick he was carrying, so my neighbor ran them off, then chased them down on his bike and took a picture of them. So far they've not come back and the signs haven't been molested again.

We talked for a few minutes, and he asked if I had noticed that I'm the only one in our area with McCain signs out, and I said yeah, that's a little discouraging, and he said, "Well, you're certainly not the only McCain supporter around here, it's just that everyone else is too scared to put the signs out, partly because of what just happened here."

What a sad commentary that is, when you can't even engage in a political campaign out of fear for your own physical well being. Is this the United States of America, or some third world banana republic?

Friday, October 24, 2008

Obama's Abortion Extremism

This is a very long article, but please take the time to read it, the information contained in it is really critical for anyone still unsure of who they should vote for in the upcoming election.

***********************************

published by:
Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Goodhttp://www.thepublicdiscourse.com
view article in original form

Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
Oct 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Why They Hate Gov. Palin

The constant barrage of media hit pieces on Governor Sarah Palin continues in and unending attempt to destroy the woman.

Yesterday we were hit with a supposed news story on how much money the Republican National Committee spent on clothes for her to wear in the campaign, as if that means anything to anyone. Of course, they don't talk about how much Obama's suits cost, or the fact that a man can get away with wearing the same suit multiple times, but these same people who are decrying Palin for her clothes would skewer her if they caught her re-wearing anything.

Then they start trying to say that she cheated the citizens of Alaska. Of course, we know that this can't be true, she's the most popular Governor in the United States, and if there were anything to this story, the Democrats in Alaska would be using it to destroy her approval ratings, which are consistently 80% or above, unheard of in American Politics.

The fact is that these people really hate Sarah Palin, because she is a smart, successful, ambitious, Conservative woman. The people who claim that they want women to be in power and to succeed in this world, don't really mean that, they don't want Conservative women to succeed at all. The National Organization for Women (NOW) should be called the National Organization for Liberal Women, because that is what they really mean.

They hate Sarah Palin because she is Pro-life, and she lives the Pro-life ethic. These liberal organizations that want to say that they believe in a woman's "right to choose" become very angry when a woman chooses, of her own free will, to have a baby that they consider undesirable, such as Gov. Palin's youngest son Trig, who has Down Syndrome. These liberals aren't happy that she made her own choice, they wanted her to kill him, plain and simple. These people are not "pro-choice" they are pro-abortion, and they hate women who disagree with them.

Don't buy the attacks by the leftist press and Obama's campaign, just vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Especially Sarah Palin.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

“Marriage Is a Social Construction.”

“Marriage Is a Social Construction.”

Gregory Koukl

What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential. This, at least, is the argument of the same-sex marriage advocacy.

It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.

Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, “Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex.” I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.

I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of same-sex marriage.

The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.

Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.

Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question, “What is marriage?”

Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families—and therefore marriages—are logically prior to culture.

Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.

Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.

That’s why same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Where Do I Send The "Thank You" Card?

At campaign rallies over the weekend Joe "Plugs" Biden had this to say, ""Mark my words, It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

This is absolutely stunning, not only is he saying that if Obama is elected, that we will be attacked or threatened in some way, but also saying that he may not do the right thing in response, but that people need to stand with him regardless if he does the right thing or not! And this is his running mate!!! Now you see why I call him the dumbest man in the Senate? Besides that, the fact is that this is actually a real worry, and something that would have been a good point for McCain to bring up, but difficult because it would have sounded like he was being a bully, or a brute, or some such thing, but here we have the Democratic VP candidate making the argument for him.

As well he should have, McCain latched onto Biden's comments and came out swinging hard. He had this to say, "The next president won't have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. We don't want a president who invites 'testing' from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting two wars." And as to the second point he added, "Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign."

After this, I see some of those Democrat spin doctors out there saying things like, "Oh well, any new President will be tested." And nonsense such as that. The fact is that History teaches us something quite different. During the 1980 Iran Hostage Crisis, the Iranians spent over a year playing games with Jimmy Carter, you can't say they were testing him, they knew he wasn't going to do anything about it, but an hour after Ronald Reagan took office, they released the hostages. They took one good look in President Reagan's eyes and realized that this was not a man they wanted to test. In the same way, I don't think they'll want to test John McCain either. But whatever troubles do arise on the world stage over the next four years, we do know that John McCain is equipped and prepared to deal with them.

And remember the other day when I said that Obama was going to raise taxes on all of us? Today Congressman Barney Frank came out and said that if the Democrats control the Congress, and Obama gets elected President, then we could ignore the deficit, put huge new spending plans in place and "Tax The Rich" to pay for it. For anyone thinking that taxing the rich doesn't seem so bad, let's remember, the more they spend, the lower their cutoff for who they consider to be rich becomes. This hot on the heals of Obama stating that he wanted to spread the wealth around, in true Socialist fashion. And again, this is straight from the Democrats!

I couldn't have made these arguments better myself, so thanks to the Dems for letting you know that I have been right all along. Now, I just want to know where to send the thank you cards. But let's not get complacent, let's get out there and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Republican Senators and Congressmen. (Unless you live in Fl US House Dist 15, then vote for Frank Zilaitis, NPA for Congress.)

Monday, October 20, 2008

Win One For The Plumber

A plumber in Ohio has become quite famous in the past couple of weeks for having asked a question of Barack Obama. The question was quite fair, and the answer was very telling, and so was the reaction of the Pro-Obama media.

First, the question, Joe the plumber, as he has come to be known, asked Obama about his tax plan, and wanted to know if he bought a business that brought in more than $250,000 a year if he would be taxed higher under Obama's tax plan. In response, Obama actually stated that it's better for everyone if we spread the wealth around. In other words, he was admitting that he intends to take, by force, the fruits of success from those who earn and produce more, and give it to those who earn and produce less, or nothing at all. This is clear cut socialism, redistribution of wealth, the opposite of what our nation was founded on, and all it stands for.

The media realized that this would not sit well with most of the American people, at least those who could be made to understand that was going on, so, in true liberal fashion, they decided to go after the man asking the question to try to distract from the answer to that question. Since the media is desperate for any way to get Obama into office, they went over the deep end digging into every aspect of Joe the plumber's life. They have been trumpeting the fact that he owes a little in back taxes and that he doesn't have a plumbers license (which, it turns out, he doesn't need for the type of work he does) and that maybe he doesn't actually have plans to buy the business in question. Every time the encounter comes up they just try to brush it off by saying that he's been discredited. As if showing the man asking the question isn't absolutely perfect will invalidate his question.

I heard one of these people the other day say that Joe the plumber owes over a thousand dollars in back taxes. This is true, but it's just barely over a thousand bucks, and yet, those same people just shrug about the many times that amount that is owed by Democrat members of Congress. And the other things that they've said about them are just fluff. But really, that doesn't even matter. The fact is that even if we found out that Joe was some sort of a low life creep, or a mental patient, it wouldn't affect the conversation in any meaningful way. The fact of the matter is that the question was valid, and the answer fully exposed the true Marxist core of the Democrat nominee for President.

This shows what lengths these people are willing to go to in order to obtain power, and how they will go after anyone, even regular folks, who pose any threat to that. And if Obama becomes President, and if the Democrats still control the Congress, all of us will see our taxes shoot through the roof. Small Businesses will see their taxes increase to the point were they will either have to shut down, or lay off employees, or, at best, not grow any bigger, all in the name of spreading the wealth around, and all the screaming about the imperfections of the questioner doesn't invalidate the question. So, when I said we need to win one for the Plumber, I'm talking about electing John McCain and Sarah Palin, and of course I mean, let's win one for us.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Defending Our Constitution

There is something that has been going around for many years now, and has come to be pretty much accepted by those who are simply ignorant of the facts. This is possibly best exemplified by John McCain's recent appearance on "The View." Senator McCain had just stated that he would look for Strict Constructionist judges, who would be Constitutionalists, upholding the Constitution as intended, and not legislating from the bench. Whoopie Goldberg asked if this mean that she needed to worry about becoming a slave. McCain said he understood what she was saying, when he really should have called her out on this idiotic statement.

What Whoopie was referring to was the original rules in the Constitution for how to count population for determining the number of Representatives in the US House for each state. The original language, which was later changed by Amendment, stated that they would count each free person, and "three fifths of all other persons" meaning slaves of course. This has been claimed by many people, for many, many years to mean that the framers of the Constitution were devaluing the slaves, or saying that they were less human than the free persons.

The fact of the matter is that this reasoning is totally backwards. The language that so many find so objectionable was actually fought for, and included by, the anti-slavery crowd! You see, they knew that it would be wrong for people who were clearly not going to be represented by those sent to Congress to be used to increase the representation of those States in the Congress. Their intention was to lay the groundwork for the eventual defeat of slavery in the United States. They wanted to be sure that Slavery would not exist forever, so, they first tried to make it so that Slaves would not count for Congressional Representation at all, since, as I said, they would not be represented, only their ongoing slavery would be ensured by them being counted. The slave states fought against this, wanting slaves to be counted as full persons, so that they could ensure the perpetualization of this dastardly institution. In fact, the pro slavery folks would have been thrilled if they could have had each of their slaves counted five times, as this would have really secured their rule. Obviously, with two such diametrically opposed positions, there was quite a fight about what language should be included in the Constitution, and the three fifths compromise was a great victory for the anti-slavery segment of the delegates.

The Constitution laid the groundwork, and the fight against slavery was on, and it would take many years for it to be won. The cost of freedom for slaves in this nation was paid in blood. Blood of a great many of white persons from the northern, anti-slavery states, and blood of a great many Southerners who thankfully lost this conflict. The entire slavery saga was a dark piece of American History, and the blood bathed redemption of the Soul of our Nation is something that should never be forgotten. The blood of the white soldiers from both sides is forever mixed in the soil with the blood of the black victims of slavery. A stark look at the history of slavery in this nation, and especially the end of slavery, should forge a strong and unified and color blind nation. And the Constitution ensured that this could happen, let us never forget that. Let us never forget any of it.

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Truth About Racism

There are a lot of charges of racism being tossed around these days by the democrats, but the problem is that the only people talking about race are the democrats themselves.

If Republicans talk about Obama's relationship with the terrorist William Ayers, the whitest white guy you'll ever see, we're called racists. If we object to universal health care, because it would be horrific for all the people of this nation, from the richest to the poorest, we're called racists. If we defend Governor Palin against the outrageous and vitriolic, hateful attacks from the left, we're called racists. It's gotten so bad, in fact, that if we point out how racist and anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter is, we're called racists... I guess they didn't notice how white he is either.

There is a very good reason for this, democrats are obsessed with race, while Republicans, at least the more Conservative variety, actually believe in equality, and that we should have a Color Blind America. The reason why the guy showed up at the Sarah Palin rally with the stuffed monkey in an Obama hat isn't that he's racist, it's that we don't double check everything we do to make sure that it can't be construed as racist. We have better things to do with our time than to obsess about race, which, to us, should be a non-issue.

We believe in actual equality. We believe that people need to be responsible for themselves. Having an equal chance doesn't mean that we all start out in the same place, or that the Government needs to step in and boost less fortunate people, it means that we don't have a caste system, and nobody is barred from success, but that some people will have to work harder for it than others do. Don't you think that the person who is born into poverty, and everything seems to be against them, but work their way to riches in spite of that, is more fulfilled than the person who is born into riches, but doesn't have any understanding of their true value? By the same token, don't you think that any person who works from a lesser state to a better state is more fulfilled than someone who has things handed to them by the Government? It is a proven fact that Welfare programs perpetuate, and even proliferate, poverty, while guts, determination, responsibility and hard work can overcome pretty much anything.

The fact of the matter is that Affirmative Action, that is, saying, we know you can't make it on your own, so, since you're not good enough, we're going to just give it to you anyway, is racist. Welfare, which doesn't more to keep people down than to lift them up, and is often targeted to black neighborhoods (though the white trash has no trouble finding it either) is racist.

I hope I've made my point clearly enough, and this post is long enough already, but one of these days I think I need to tear into the sordid, and terribly racist history of the Democratic party. That should be fun.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

When I first saw that this lawsuit had been filed, I thought, well it's obviously a bunch of crap, but how is a judge going to make it look like he or she gave it due consideration, when there is a literally nothing they can do. Honestly, I think the judge handled it pretty well.

*************************************************

Suit against God thrown out over lack of address

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A judge has thrown out a Nebraska legislator's lawsuit against God, saying the Almighty wasn't properly served due to his unlisted home address. State Sen. Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God.

He said God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents in Omaha, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

On Tuesday, however, Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk ruled that under state law a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a lawsuit to move forward.

"Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," Polk wrote.

Chambers, who graduated from law school but never took the bar exam, thinks he's found a hole in the judge's ruling.

"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God," Chambers said Wednesday. "A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience."

Therefore, Chambers said, "Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

Chambers has 30 days to decide whether to appeal. He said he hasn't decided yet.

Chambers, who has served a record 38 years in the Nebraska Legislature, is not returning next year because of term limits. He skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Why "Lobbyist" Isn't A Bad Word

The Obama campaign, the media, and way too many regular people, are far too hung up on Washington Lobbyists. It's understandable from the Obama people, since they are trying to lie and deceive their way into the White House. The media is understandable, since they are in the tank for Obama, and have the distinct goal of helping him to lie and deceive his way into the White House. But why regular people? Oh yeah, they are getting a constant barrage of this garbage everywhere they turn.

First, I wonder how many people actually understand what a lobbyist does. I have a feeling that most people don't really understand what lobbying is all about. The term comes from a long time ago when people, representing the interest of their own company or organization, or the interest of someone who hired them, would wait for Congressmen in the lobbies of their buildings, and try to talk them around to their point of view. It has come a long way since then, but that's still the basic premise behind the practice. Meet with Congressmen (I mean that generically, men, women, Representatives or Senators) and try to talk them around to a certain position.

The main reason why many regular people feel animosity toward lobbyists stems from the fact that for the most part, we only hear about the ones who are corrupt. We tend to hear about the ones that have literally paid bribes for votes, or taken Congressmen off on corporate jets for long weekends of schmoozing. But that's not how everyone does it, nor to I believe it's really all that common, certainly not anymore. Of course, the politicians expect us to miss the fact that a bribe cannot simply be paid, it must also be accepted, meaning that, without corrupt politicians, it would be impossible to have corrupt lobbyists!

Something else to understand about lobbyists, sometimes they are already and expert in the field that they are lobbying about, and sometimes over the course of years of lobbying for the same industry, they become experts, meaning that they very well could be good go to people to learn the truth about something, as long as they are not currently being paid to lobby one position or another.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that John McCain employs some former Lobbyists on his campaign staff (the same as Barack Obama by the way) is pretty much meaningless. The fact that these people were once employed to push a certain agenda, but are now simply giving honest advice, should not be held against them. As long as they are not currently employed by an industry or lobbying firm, and were not corrupt as a lobbyist, why should they be excluded from employment in a campaign?

I, for one, am kinda sick of "lobbyist" being treated as a dirty word, or a profession somewhat less desirable than prostitution. It simply isn't true.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

An American Carol

Yesterday I took myself to the movies. An overall enjoyable experience. A theater with just myself and a bunch of old people, none of whom dared venture closer than three rows from the top, leaving the back row for me, and allowing me to be as comfortable as I pleased. I enjoyed it so much, in fact, that I may do it again at some point, when there is a movie I want to see that nobody else really cares about, but next time, maybe I'll take enough money for popcorn.

Anyway, I saw the new flick, "An American Carol" a rabidly, and I would say, awesomely, pro-American film, loosely based on the ever popular play, "A Christmas Carol." It's a very satirical film, and quite funny. A little over the top in places, but I think that was the point, and not something to take the kids to.

In all though, it was great to leave the theater having been reminded of many of the reasons why America is such a great nation. I was somewhat amazed at how a spoof film, poking fun at one of the most rabid anti-American film-makers of our day, could renew such a sense of hope about the future, by looking to the past. Underlying the humor there is a very serious message in this movie. One that I don't think you can miss when you see it.

I enjoyed this movie a lot, on many levels, and would recommend that any adult go ahead and see it, just be advised, there is some foul language (not bad by today's standards at all) and, as I said, some stuff is a little over the top, but a great movie, none the less. Go ahead, treat yourself, you'll be glad you did.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

What's With The Lies?

I have to wonder why it is that the headlines all say "Palin Abused Power!" But when you read the articles you find that the report found that the firing (of the state employee) was "proper and lawful."

Can there be any question that this is nothing more than an attempt to hurt the McCain/Palin campaign?

Even some of the politicians on this panel up in Alaska have said that we shouldn't take the accusations in it too seriously, as the Democrats that were behind this whole thing were doing it for political purposes, because they are Obama supporters.

It's all just sickening.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Stock Market Woes

Does anyone else remember how the $700 Billion (Which became $850 Billion after being laden with $150 Billion in pork) was pitched to us? It had to be done right away, there was no time to lose, or we were all going to regret it.

I wonder what would have happened without the bailout? Would the Stock Market have lost a bunch of value? Well, that can't be it, because that happened anyway. Would all those mortgages in default have gone into foreclosure? No, that can't be it either, because that is still happening too. Maybe the point was so that Politicians could pound their own chests and pronounce that they had taken decisive action? Oh yeah, that must be it, because, other than plunging us another (almost) Trillion dollars in debt, that seems to be the only thing that has happened.

A couple of things to understand about the Stock Market. When you see a steady decline over the course of the day, and then, all of a sudden it nosedives in the closing minutes, that is because certain thresholds have been reached which trigger automatic sell orders in the computer systems at the big investment houses, and they just start selling stocks off like crazy. This could have a cascading effect if it didn't happen so close to the end of the day. It's a weakness in the system, and something they really need to fix. Often you see evidence of this happening because at the opening bell the following day, the market will rally, as the people at those investment houses try to buy back some of the stocks that they never intended to sell. So, a lot of the day to day, and minute to minute following of the market is meaningless.

Another thing is this, bailing on the stock market doesn't make any sense at this point. For the most part, if you have money in the stock market, you bought in at a much higher price than what we have right now. Have you heard the old adage, "Buy low, sell high"? Selling now would be opposite of that. If you have money in any single stock, well, that wasn't really a very good idea in any event, because there is certainly no guarantee that a single stock won't fall all the way to zero, so you have to make a call on what to do with that, but if you're in a good Mutual Fund with a good long track record, or a 401k or IRA which is invested in such funds, the best financial minds are in agreement, you need to sit tight. The best indicator of future performance is past performance, and 100% of the 10 year periods in the history of the Stock Market have made money, rather than lost.

A lot of people have bailed out on the fear, it would seem, that the market might crash all the way to zero, and they will fully lose all the money that they have. The problem with this way of thinking is that in order for a complete collapse of the stock market to happen, it would take a complete collapse of our economy, in which case money in the bank, or even paper money in your mattress will be totally worthless. And for those of you who think that all your gold is going to save you, the truth is that when an economy collapses, gold doesn't do any good either. Gold is not an accepted medium of exchange if people don't have food to eat, clothes to wear, or a place to rest their heads. All that has value in those cases are things that fill an immediate need, and gold or Federal Reserve Notes simply won't cut it.

I'm not telling people what to do, each of us has to make up our own minds. For me, while I'm not scraping money together to dump into the stock market, I am continuing to contribute to my 401k at the same rate that I have been for years now. It's value is down quite a bit from where it used to be, but, I expect it to recover, and the money I'm putting in now will make a lot more over time than that same money would have if the market had stayed strong.

In short, this is not a time to panic, this is a time to carefully consider options, to be coldly calculating, and remain on an even keel. Don't let the news media get to you. The fundamentals of our economy are strong, because that's you and me, the American workforce, the most productive, and most innovative workforce in the world. The answer to this crisis isn't for the Government to get more involved, it's for the Government to get off the back of the American workforce, and let us do what we do best, work, produce, create, and do. And for the Government to get off the backs of our businesses, large and small, and free them up to put us to work, that is how we can fix this problem. Part of this is taxes, Obama wants to ratchet up taxes on those very businesses, McCain does not. On yet one more front, the choice is clear.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Did O'Reilly Nail It?

Last night, Bill O'Reilly outlined what he feels that McCain needs to do if he wants a sure fire way to win the upcoming election. He said that McCain really needs to take the bull by the horns on the economy, and the financial meltdown, and really come out swinging. He said that McCain really needs to name some names as to the people responsible, be they in Congress, or on Wall Street, or in any other place in Government, or wherever, and tell the people that he isn't going to let them get away with it. According to O'Reilly, McCain should proclaim that when he becomes President, he's going to name Rudy Giuliani as his Attorney General, and direct him to get to the bottom of the whole mess and prosecute all those involved who are responsible for the meltdown. He also said that McCain needs to say that he's going to appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of the Treasury because he's known for being good with the economy and would also be helpful to Giuliani in figuring out who all the crooks are.

I've been giving this some though, and I think that he might have a point, this might be a way for McCain to turn the tables on Obama and regain the momentum and really take the lead in this race. What do you think? Would this be a winning strategy?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Taxes, Surpluses And Other Obama Lies

First, let's talk taxes. Obama claims, over and over again, that he will give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and increase taxes on the "Super Rich" and corporations. Of course, he defines the "Super Rich" as those who make $250,000 a year or more, but that includes small businesses. Now, I know that Obama keeps saying that it's only a very small percentage of small businesses that make that much money, but that simply is not true. You see, we're not talking about the profits of these businesses, we're talking about the gross income, so, if you tax them based on those incomes, there is no question that they will have to lay people off, or close entirely. And, as for Corporations, the US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and increasing that will cost jobs, as companies move to protect their bottom lines, or simply move overseas and shut down their US operations. So, even if he were telling the truth, that he was only going to increase taxes on them, it would kill us. Also, while it would take me several years to make $250,000, people at that level are not super rich. I'm not saying that they are in dire straights, but they are not super rich.

The truth on taxes is that Obama has proposed nearly a trillion dollars in new domestic spending, plus nearly a trillion dollars in increased spending on existing programs, and nearly another trillion on his "Global Poverty Act" which is a plan to throw money at world poverty, which is a tried and true, proven way to make the global poverty worse. But either way, all of these things need to be paid for, and there isn't enough money in the coffers of corporations or the super rich, so it is impossible to give tax cuts to those of us who make less than that, and I get pretty ticked off when people, like Barack Obama, think that I'm too stupid to understand that.

Another thing that Obama likes to talk about are the great surpluses that we had when President Clinton left office, but that's a lie too. We were still running up debt, and you can't base a surplus on debt. That would be like me getting a loan for $40,000 and then claiming that I had a surplus in my budget of $40,000, when the truth is that I would then have $40,000 in debt. Then he says that under President Bush we have lost those surpluses and have started running deficits. Unfortunately, he seems to forget that we had this little thing happen on September 11th, 2001, that has caused some major changes in our world. Maybe he was distracted by his buddy William Ayers saying that he wished he had done more to damage the USA, and didn't notice what the rest of us were going through on that day.

Now, take his health care plan. It must be a lie because he's said so many contradictory things over the course of this campaign that it can't possibly be the truth. The fact is that what he wants to come up with is Government run health care, based on the models that have failed so miserably in the UK and Canada, just to name two. I have talked about this before, it doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will work.

And did you notice at the debate how arrogant Obama was? He was very belligerent with both McCain and with Tom Brokaw, and refused to follow the agreed upon rules. McCain did run over his time several times, but not deliberately, and even told Tom at one point that if he was going too long, just to wave at him and he would finish up quickly. Obama actually argued with Brokaw whenever he wanted to say something more, and the debate needed to move along. Clearly, from his behavior at these debates, and at other campaign events, Obama is not ready to be President, in fact, he hasn't even proven himself able to handle the office that he now holds in the US Senate.

For clear thinking people, the choice is clear, Obama is not even an option on election day. may God give us more clear thinking people.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Ayers vs. Keating

The Obama campaign wants us to believe that Barack Obama's affiliation with William Ayers is equivalent to John McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal, but is that true? Let's explore.

The Keating 5 scandal involved five Senators who were accused of not taking action against Keatings company because he had made contributions to them. However, it should have become known as the Keating 3 scandal, since two of the Senators, John McCain and John Glenn were fully cleared of any and all wrongdoing, though some people still said that they exercised poor judgment, so, at worst, John McCain made a mistake, 21 years ago, and presumably, he has been able to learn from his mistakes, assuming he even did that much, which is not certain. At the time, McCain's position was that they could not take any inappropriate action on behalf of Keatings company, and that they had to put the American people first. At a meeting in April of 1987 McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." At that same meeting, John Glenn stated, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," showing that neither of them were looking to take the side of this company, nor did they want to cause them undue harm, and thus hurt the people who were working for the company. After that meeting, McCain never had any further contact with Keating. You can decide if he made the right decision or not, but, as I said before, at worst, he made a mistake.

Now, according to the Obama Campaign, this is equivalent to his relationship to 1960's terrorist William Ayers. Ayers is one of the founders of a group called the Weather Underground, and this group in general, and Ayers in particular were responsible for carrying out, and attempting, multiple bombings of Government and police buildings back in the late 60's and Early 70's. So, unlike Keating, Ayers killed people, and the organization that he founded, killed even more. One of Obama's first political meetings, or fund raisers, or however they want to qualify it, was held in Ayers' home, and they sat on the board of a foundation together, supporting radical causes. Ayers and his wife, another terrorist, were big parts of Obama's first run for public office. Obama's campaign tries to say that this isn't so bad because Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was out bombing his Country. On that front, so what? Does that make him someone you would want to be a friend to? I hadn't been born when Ayers was out doing these things, but I would certainly not associate with him, but there's more to it than that. You see on September 11th, 2001, while the rest of the country was trying to process the horrible events of that day, Ayers was making a statement that he felt that he had not done enough to damage his country. Obama was somewhat more than eight years old at that time. And, oh yeah, Ayers is an unrepentant TERRORIST! Somehow, having a friend like this, and they are friends, no matter what Obama tries to say, doesn't seem to bode well for someone who wants to be president, and to me, is far worse than some minor mistake that McCain may or may not have made 20 years go.

This tactic by the Obama Campaign is classic liberal running for cover. It's campaigning on the level of "I'm the rubber and you're the glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" Whenever Obama doesn't have a good answer for something, he stands up and says, "But the other guy does thus and such," while never dealing with the actual issue at hand.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Fireproof


We went with our Small Group last night to see the new movie "Fireproof". This is a Christian movie from the creators of "Facing The Giants" and starring Kirk Cameron.

First, yeah, some of the acting was a little sub-par, though Kirk Cameron's performance was phenomenal, but then, he's an actor by trade, so I guess you would expect that. Really though, most of the actors were decent, but then, most of the really good, not to mention big name actors, make more money for a part than the entire budget for this movie, so, I guess you have to cut them some slack there also, but really the acting was better than I had expected it to be, so, no complaints. As for the production quality, again, considering the budget, I think they did a very good job.

As to the story, which is the really important part after all, I thought it was excellent. Admittedly, it's a little preachy in places, but when you are really trying to get a message across, I guess you go to great lengths to make it unmissable (is that a word?). After all, if you really made the movie to send a message and have an impact, do you really want to take the chance that the very people that you most want to catch the message are going to miss it? Or to leave enough room for them to fill in the blanks with their own theories or some of the misguided "Theology" that's floating around in our culture today? I don't think you would.

We live in a culture today of disposable marriages, based on the idea that if it doesn't work out, we'll just scrap it and try again on down the road. This is never what marriage was supposed to be about, and that point is made clearly in the movie, along with a very strong and in your face presentation of the Gospel, which is why I said it's kinda preachy, which I might have meant as a criticism before I gave it a little more thought. If we spend so much time being afraid to give the Gospel, then no wonder it's not getting out.

I think that most any Christian would really enjoy this movie, and I would encourage all Christians to go see it. As for Non-Christians, I think they can enjoy it too, but I wouldn't go gather all your non-Christian friends and drag them to go see it, they will probably resent it, as strong as it, if they feel you're trying to force it on them. On the other hand, there is no problem with recommending it to them, it's a wonderful story, or with inviting them to see it with you, as long as you don't misrepresent it. And if anyone tells you that they are thinking of seeing it, just be honest, it's a good movie (it would help to see it yourself before saying this however) and can be enjoyed by anyone.

I think this is a good movie, and strongly recommend it. I hope you all go to see it and that you enjoy it as much as I did.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Advice for McCain/Palin

I've seen quite a bit of nonsense from the Media about how great Joe Biden did the VP debate, and how Sarah Palin wasn't up to it, but that's all nonsense. Granted, I was really wanting to see him fall flat on his face, and he didn't. Also, there were times where I thought she really could have pressed some issues and really gone after him, but she didn't. Still, over all, Governor Palin won this debate, but on substance and style, and the fact that Biden made multiple gross and indisputable factual errors, and she didn't. So she beat him, but it brings to mind the idea of an iron fist in a velvet glove.

My advice to John McCain and Sarah Palin is, it's time for the gloves to come off. If they want to win this election, it's time for the brass knuckles. Barack Obama has a glass jaw (politically speaking) if the Republicans can land a solid blow... especially with brass knuckles.

This is clearly not a time for McCain and Palin to lay back. They can still win this election, but they have to be very strong, and show why they are the team to lead our nation.

Friday, October 3, 2008

One Debate Point

Watching the Vice Presidential debate from last night, I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear this, but I think Governor Palin won by a decent margin. That being said, Senator Biden handled himself better than I would have expected him to, but not good enough, and he clearly has a problem with the truth, but what else would you expect?

There is one point that I want to address though. At one point while debating the economy, Biden stated that when it comes to Mortgages, the Government should have the authority not only to readjust interest rates to make it easier for people to make their payments, but also to adjust the Principle. Did you get that?!!? He wants the Government to be able to simply wipe out part of the debt! That is to say that people who were irresponsible and bought houses that they couldn't afford, sometimes by a lot, and let them keep their big expensive houses, and they don't have to pay the full amount for them!! So, if someone could only afford a $100,000 house, but they took out one of those subprime mortgages, that they would have to be complete morons to not realize that they couldn't afford them, and bought a $450,000 house, well, then Uncle Sam will step in and adjust the principle on that loan so that they can afford it now. Well, if they could only afford $100,000 before, then they can only afford that now, so are they going to wipe off $350,000 of that persons debt? Talk about Socialism and redistribution of wealth! And let's be clear, that's transferring wealth from regular folks like me, who bought a house we could afford, and didn't take out a crazy mortgage, and don't make a ton of money, to irresponsible morons who had no self control, and made stupid decisions, and make at least as much money as I do, if not more, likely more.

If nothing else this should show everyone that the Obama/Biden view of the world is based on seriously flawed logic. People really need to wake up and see that Obama/Biden would spell serious disaster for our nation, and would do nothing to help the world either, regardless of their rhetoric.

This really is disgusting to me.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

The Common Sense Fix

Below you will find the plan being put forth by Dave Ramsey, the financial guy, on how we should fix the economic problems
that we have right now. While I can't say that I like all of these things, it is clear the Congress is going to do something,
and this is far better that the $750 Billion that they are talking about now. We need to copy this, send it to our Senators
and Congressmen and demand that they follow this plan instead of what they are pushing for now.

**************************************

The Common Sense Fix

Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country,
but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support
any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance.
Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two
things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a
6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the
balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a
chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of
foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable
for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that
encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and
ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and
executive team members as long as the company holds these
government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming
executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down
bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on
failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock
market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping
the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the
economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down.
This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

FDIC Farce

Has anyone else noticed that the Congress has not yet passed a bailout bill? Didn't they say that if they didn't get one passed by Friday that the Economy was going to grind to a halt, and the world would end, or something of that nature? Has anyone noticed the economy grinding to a halt or the world coming to an end? Right, me either. But they keep assuring us that it really will grind to a halt if we don't let them do this $750,000,000,000 bailout... eventually. Truth is that, yes, there will be some pain if Congress does nothing, but it won't be the end. This is a case where some short term pain will be good for us all, and a short term band aide fix could bring the economy to it's knees... eventually.

The latest thing that they keep wanting to throw at us is an increase in the covered amount of deposits by the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp) from the current 100 Grand to 250 Grand. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have signed off on this as a good idea, so I can't hammer either one on this issue... but I can hammer them both. This means that if you have up to 100 grand in the bank, per account, the Government is going to guarantee that money to you in the event that your bank collapses. Not that most of us have 100 grand in the bank, so I'm not so sure how this applies to us in any case, but that's not the main point.

What needs to be understood here is that the FDIC is broke. The most recent available figures that I'm aware of show that the FDIC has $1.50 available for every $100.00 covered, that's 1.5%, so if more than 1.5% of the accounts in the US were in danger, at present, the FDIC could do nothing about it, so raising the limit does what? Other than lower the percentage that they are actually able to cover?

The truth is that this is just another ploy, a meaningless play to try to get us to feel better about the things that they are doing, but really, even if it did apply to most of us, and even if the FDIC did have enough money to cover all of the deposits, it's still totally disassociated from the issue of the current economic problems. It simply doesn't apply, it's just more smoke and mirrors to try to distract us from what they are really tyring to do, which are things that could cripple our economy, and our nation, in the coming years.

It's not too late to put pressure on your elected representatives in Congress to put a stop to all this madness. Just call or email and make it clear, politely of course, that if they vote for this bill, they are fired, that you, nor anyone you know, will vote for them in any election, ever again, for anything. Contact them today if possible.