Merry Christmas

Hope all of you have had a wonderful Christmas, spending time with family and friends, opening gifts, having tons of great food, and most importantly, remembering that we are celebrating the birth of Christ.

Living in Florida we don't have much of a chance of a white Christmas, but being in PA visiting family this year, we at least had a shot. Of course, Saturday there was plenty of snow, and the kids had a great time playing in it and going sledding and such, but since then it has pretty well melted, so we kind of had a patchy white Christmas, but that's OK, we still had a wonderful time.

Last night while I was tucking my Son in for bed he asked me to tell him "The Night Before Christmas" which I only vaguely remember, so I started to tell him, then I made up the rest, I called it the abridged version, but he was happy none the less. While I was finishing that up my niece came in and asked if I could tell her a story too, and she wanted it to have a pony in it, so I told her that I would do her one better, I would tell her a story that really happened, and it would have a donkey in it. So I told them the Christmas Story, all about Jesus being born in Bethlehem so long ago. Both of them loved it.

This morning we all got up and we gave the kids their stockings, which they loved, and then we had breakfast before moving on to the rest of the gifts. My daughter, who is 8, prayed before the meal, and she thanked God for sending his only Son to be born so that he could die for her sins. How awesome is that? My 4 year old son also made sure to say Happy Birthday to Jesus before he opened his presents.

We had a great Christmas meal with family, Roast Beef (tender and falling apart just as it should be) and a Ham (lovingly butchered and smoked at a local butchers) and quite a bit of other wonderful fare. The kids played and a great time was had by all. I only hope and pray that we can all say the same.

Merry Christmas to all!!!!

"Cross"-Eyed

There's a whole lot of hoopla about Mike Huckabee's Christmas Campaign ad. At issue is the fact that a bookshelf in the background gives the distinct impression of a Cross. The idea that is being put forth by many is that this is a subliminal message endorsing Christianity, and, they say, it interjects too much faith into politics, or something like that.

I have to concede the point that the bookshelf in question does look an awful lot like a Cross in the background of the ad, but Mr. Huckabee claims that it was not deliberate, and that they hadn't noticed it until the "issue" was raised by people who cried "Offense!" And while this seems a bit tough to swallow, given all of the staffers who would have seen screenings before the ad aired, we certainly don't have any proof that any of them brought it up. Perhaps some saw it, thought it was deliberate, and liked it, so didn't feel they needed to comment on it. Sounds plausible, but the truth is that we just don't know.

Another point here is that it doesn't seem to me that this was done deliberately, and the reason I say that is simple, the ad was blatantly Christian in theme, with Governor Huckabee talking about Christmas, and even saying the words, "Birth of Christ." So, given that, why in the world would they deny the Cross if they had intended to put it there? Huckabee says he's a Christian, so he wouldn't need to hide it if he were surrounded by Christian symbols, especially at Christmas time.

All of this being said of course, I need to ask something now, what's with the "subliminal" thing? Even if it were put there deliberately, it's not subliminal, it's not even all that subtle, but is fairly in your face, perhaps not so much so that it couldn't be missed by some people, but certainly enough to show that it's not subliminal.

More than likely this is just another case of people seeing something that they wanted to see. They were looking for a reason to point another finger at Huckabee and say that he's too religious, and that he brings too much faith into politics. Something I've always said, and I can't claim it to be original, even though I don't know where I might have heard it, I may have picked it up somewhere; If you look hard enough for something, you'll likely find it, regardless of whether it's there or not. I think that just might be what happened here.

Regardless of what actually happened, you can count on the mainstream media to use this to further their agenda of seeing a Democrat elected to the White House in 2008. We've known for a long time that a majority of Journalists, and others in the media, are unabashedly liberal, but now they don't even give so much as lip service to the idea of fairly reporting a story, always having to spin it, or add some sort of slant, or angle, that makes things come out their way.

Either way, right now Huckabee is immensely popular with many Conservative Republicans, and this ad, deliberate Cross or not, will not hurt him in the Primary one little bit. If, however, he gets the nod, you can count on the dems and the media to try to use it any way they can to discredit him as a contender for the Presidency. I would say the polls don't lie, but that would be a lie, so I won't. In my opinion polls are the next thing to worthless, but many media types like to quote them as if they are the be-all and end-all of American politics. Only time will tell.

So Much Nonsense, So Little Time

With the Presidential Primary Season coming down the to wire, one would expect to see some really hard hitting news stories, and some really hard questions for the Candidates about issues, and a lot of research about their character, and their values. My, how disappointed one would be if this is really what they were expecting.

First off, last night, on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, she sat down with all the major Presidential contenders and asked them about their temper. OK, so, you ask a politician if they have a problem losing their temper, what do you expect them to say? "Oh, yes, I've got a nasty one, that dude from Iran looks at me the wrong way and I'll nuke him right off the face of the Earth!" I mean come on, it's meaningless drivel, meant to fill time and masquerade as real news, but it utterly worthless to anyone who is serious about finding a candidate to get behind for their party's nomination, or for President in the General Election. I'm not saying that temper doesn't matter, if one of them has a history of beating the tar out of people, we need to know that, but I guarantee you that you are not going to get that answer directly from the Candidate, it's going to take some real digging, some real, honest, journalism.

But let's not just point fingers at CBS, they certainly aren't alone in doing ridiculous stories and asking ridiculous questions. When it comes to Romney, all they seem to be able to ask him about is his religion, which I've discussed before, and there is some importance to it, but the issue has been dealt with, lets move on. To Romney's credit, he works hard to steer conversations and interviews on to real issues, and actually tell us what he's about, or at the very least, what he wants us to think he's about.

I have the same issue with coverage of Mike Huckabee, everyone wants to focus on his religion, and his background in it. Again, it's a valid issue, but it's been dealt with, let's get on to the real issues. A problem here however is that, unlike Romney, Huckabee doesn't fight to overcome this, but plays right into it, allowing it to be smokescreen in front of his campaign regarding other issues. What we need is a real clear look at this man who would be President (and regardless of what the Media and Pundit types would tell us, actually does have a shot) and where he stands and what he would do. But you really have to fight to get that clear look, and unfortunately, there's enough misinformation out there about Huckabee that you have to be extra careful what you believe.

On to Rudy Giuliani, who pretty much gets a free pass on his liberal standing on 90% (or more) of the issues, while being grilled continuously about providing protection to his mistress (now wife) while mayor of NYC. As I stated in a previous post, "Wrong Question," this isn't what should have been considered there. For one, they seem to gloss over the fact that Rudy was still married while he was off "hooking up" with this other woman, which is a cause of great concern in a Presidency, it's not just about his personal life, as he would have us believe. He took vows to his then wife. Part of being married is being faithful to your spouse and to the vows (read "oaths") you take to the person before Almighty God, and if you can't even live up to that, why should we expect you to uphold the oath of office taken to the US Constitution? Furthermore, he knew he was going to have to offer her protection once people found out he was sleeping with her, and he knew that would happen in fairly short order, it's not the kind of thing that you can keep secret, so, how is is this man fiscally conservative? I mean, he didn't mind spending big money in taxpayers money so that he could have an affair, why should we trust him with the Federal Budget? But that question wasn't asked either. All we seem to hear are questions along the lies of, "Wouldn't it have been better for you politically if you'd have let some whack job take her out?" Of course nobody has ever said that, but come on, it's pretty much what it boils down to, not real issues, and not even the heart of the issue they are supposedly covering. Just more fluff. Even Bill O'Reilly says things like, the woman he had an affair with while still married... but New Yorkers knew that marriage was already pretty much over, as if that makes it all OK.

Also, it took them quite awhile to get over Fred Thompson's "trophy wife" before we could get any real coverage about him, which there wasn't much of to begin with. It's nutty, but that is what they talked about.

On the democratic side we hear about people attacking Hillary because she's a woman, which is utter nonsense, and then about the mud slinging between Obama and Clinton, not because it's meaningful, but precisely because it's not. It clouds our perception of where they stand on the issues.

They do seem to have dropped the ball in one spot though, they talk about John Edwards being vain, getting $400 haircuts and living in a Mansion across the street from a trailer park, whose residents he completely ignores, meanwhile he's going around the country talking about the two America's and the divide between the elites and the regular folk. OOOPPSSS!! That's an actual meaningful story that exemplifies that Edwards talks a good game, but is really one of the elites that he claims to despise.

There are plenty more examples of this, but I think we all get the point. The goal of the Mainstream Media is to cloud the issues from the view of the American people, while at the same time influencing them to vote for the one they pick. They want to tell us what to think about the news, not just report the news and let us decide for ourselves. It takes a little more effort to see through the nonsense, but the American people in general are smart enough to do it, if only they will.

Color Dem Crazy

I had quite the experience the other day. It seems that there was a Republican debate which I hadn't been aware of, and I missed it, though I'm told that I didn't miss much. So I saw another listing for "Presidential Debate" and I recorded it, hoping that it might be a replay of the one that I missed. I should have looked more closely. I ended up recording the Democratic debate.

I watched several minutes of it, much for the same reason that people would watch a train wreck, it may be horrific, but you just can't look away... until, that is, you become overwhelmed by the gore (no pun intended) and just can't take any more.

Overall though, it was a positive experience. It made me realize something. Something that I probably already knew on some level, but hadn't fully comprehended yet. You see, as I've said before, I've been looking more at the Republicans until the nominees are selected, and we get into a general election. I've known what the Democrats are all about, and what kind of dastardly plans they have for the USA, but what struck me was how open and honest they are about it.

It was really an experience listening to these people, all of whom wish to become President, although there really are only 2 who may have a realistic shot, talk so openly about the socialistic programs and policies that they would try to put in place if elected. For me, being a Conservative, the words "Universal Healthcare" are flat out evil words. This because I understand, as most conservatives do, how much a of a disaster Government run Health Care would be for the USA, just as it has been for every other nation in which it has been attempted, Micheal Moore's propaganda not withstanding. And yet I heard John Edwards use the same phrase as though the world will end if it is not implemented, and those little lines that show what people think of the Candidates answer kept going up, indicating that they liked it, and it wasn't just those identified as liberal, but also those identified as moderate. I was also treated to a delightful sound bite of Barrack Obama talking about the redistribution of wealth, of course, that's not how he put it, he said something to the effect that we should close the tax loopholes for the rich, so we can take that money, and put it back into the pockets of the taxpayers... a totally incomprehensible statement if taken at face value, but what he actually meant was, he wants to raise taxes on the rich (which is where it starts, but in the end it always nails anyone who works for a living) and hand it out in social welfare programs to those who have less. This is the paragon of Socialism. Now, I'm not going to argue that there are tax loopholes, and something needs to be done, but the Obama plan won't cut it. The tax code needs to be tossed in the trash, and a new, fair, and honest way of collecting taxes needs to be implemented.

I also heard one of the others talking about all the places we could cut spending, things like pulling out of Iraq, and cutting a whole boatload of military expenditures that aren't even related to the Iraq conflict, leaving us weak and vulnerable, but hey, the Government would have plenty of money to spend then, according to this clown.

Perhaps they should have saved themselves the time and trouble, and just given each candidate five minutes to explain what steps they would take to undermine American sovereignty, liberty, and prosperity in favor of globalism. This would have at least given them all a chance to be bi-partisan, since they could talk about continuing to fight for George W. Bush's dream of amnesty for all illegal immigrants, and totally open and unsecured borders. That might have been a good place to start.

One other thing I heard, and this was right before I shut the thing off, was Hillary trying to take credit for the good state of the US economy under Bill's presidency, as if she had something to do with it... as if he had anything to do with it! Most of those good economic years we had were carryover from the Reagan years and all of his hard work to get our nation back on track. But I digress. This is one place where I think conservatives and Republicans have done ourselves a great dis-service. So many pundits have talked at length about how much power Hillary had during Bill's presidency, and have called them Co-Presidents, and things of that nature, so, anyone who has good memories of those years, and who buys into this line of reasoning, will actually have more reason to vote for Hillary, cause they would think that they were getting her back, when in truth, and people need to be honest, we never had her to begin with... Thank God!

The saddest part of all though is the number of Republicans who are willing to support Rudy Giuliani to run against one of these democrats, when he's really one of them. Yes, I called him a socialist, and I meant it. But don't take my word for it, go ahead, elect him, he'll destroy our nation just as much as any democrat, but at least I'll be able to say, see, I was right.

Rational?

Maybe I just have a twisted mind, but have you ever considered how strange it is for kids raised out in the country (and I really mean out in the country, not the suburbs, not an apartment overlooking central park) to believe in Santa Claus? Don't you think it would make more sense for them to say something like, "I know Santa's not real, cause if his fat butt ever dropped down our chimney, my daddy would'a shot him dead on the spot!" Honestly, can't you just see it? If Santa ever ventured into the backwoods, down home, country, good ole boy parts of this land, his Reindeer would be mounted on some Hillbillies wall. I'm not insulting country folk here, it's simply true.

More seriously though, I never really understood what all the fuss was about when it came to Santa Claus. Perhaps because I was never raised to believe in him myself, and so, always thought it silly that anyone could buy into such a fanciful idea, especially for those who then turned around and didn't believe in God. My dad told me once that it was his opinion that if he had lied to me about Santa Claus, why should I believe anything else he told me? And besides, I guess he had heard or read somewhere that kids who firmly believed in Santa, then finding out the truth, generally had a harder time believing in God, after all, wouldn't they one day learn that He wasn't real either? Look at the similarities, someone who sees everything you do, and knows if you're bad or good, and will hold you accountable for it, but you can never see him, and no one can ever find where he lives, even though they "know" where it is (be it the North Pole, or Heaven.)

I'm not condemning anyone who does teach their children that Santa is real, but I do find it exasperating when they get all worked up because the kid finds out the truth, like it's some great sad day when the kid finally realizes that it's all a giant hoax, the worlds most acceptable lie. I mean, how terrible it must be that the kid now knows the truth of the matter. And the lengths that some people will go to in order to perpetuate the lie to their children is utterly staggering to me. It can be fun when the kids are little, but when they learn the truth, why sweat it?

Personally, my wife was very upset with me because I took the same stance as my parents and told our daughter the truth from day one. She "ordered" me not to do the same with our son, but hey, what can I say, the kid is smart, and, at 4 years old, already knows that there is no Santa, he told me so just the other day. He also knows that there's not Easter Bunny, but he's a little unsure about the Tooth Fairy... but I think his sister spilled that one to him too. But he does believe in Jesus with all his heart, and all the way to the very limit of his understanding, which, I think, is the best that can be said of any of us.

I'm reminded of a story my dad always told (I was a little young to remember it first-hand) of a trip to the supermarket around Easter time when my brother and I were very young. The cashier asked my brother (who was probably 4 or 5 at the time) if the Easter Bunny was coming to his house, and he says, "No." She, of course, wanted to know why not. He told her that there was no Easter Bunny. She wanted to know what he meant, there was no Easter Bunny??? He looked right at her and said, "Because, Santa Claus ate him for Thanksgiving." I don't think Dad could have gotten a much dirtier look if my brother had used a 4 letter word, but hey, our family is getting good laughs out of that to this day, so, why not?

Anyway, it's just something I was thinking about, and like I said, I'm not trying to call anyone a bad person, or bad parent, or anything else for playing along with the Santa myth, but please, when the kid learns the truth, let the thing die it's natural death, will ya?

Merry Christmas, and God Bless!

Old Hickory

I just finished watching a very interesting special program on the History Channel about the Seventh President of the United States of America, Andrew Jackson, and it really got me thinking about some things.

First of all, I know that some people will do anything they can to diminish the memory of this man, and it's certain that he made some huge mistakes in his life, and in the decisions he made, however, some of the criticism is unfair. Among the biggest criticism is in regards to the tragic issue of "Indian Removal." President Jackson strongly supported a bill in Congress, and was able to get it passed, which required all American Indians to be moved west of the Mississippi River. This law was struck down by the Supreme Court, but Jackson sent the Army to enforce it anyway, saying that while the Court had made the ruling, he would see if they could enforce it. For many reasons this is not something he should have done, but to be fair, this action was supported by Presidents both pre and post the Jackson Presidency, as well as a majority of Americans, and the only thing really different about Jackson is that he had the Character and the strength of will to get it done. No doubt though that this is a black mark on his own legacy and the History of our great nation, but that is only one aspect of this man.

Andrew Jackson was unique in the History of American politics, and sadly, we are not likely to find his kind in American politics today. He was the common man, the anti-elite, and the embodiment of the American Dream. A person who went from nothing all the way to the highest office in the land. A passionate man who settled his problems with rivals on the dueling field, in one instance allowing himself to be shot, not rushing to shoot first, so that he might, instead of wasting his shot, have a chance to kill his opponent, who had spoken ill of Jackson's wife. Placing his hand over the bullet wound, which, but for a half an inch, would have taken his life, carefully aimed and killed the man who had slandered the honor of his beloved. As a military man, after being ordered to disband his troops and send them home any way they could get there, refused to disband them, or to abandon them, and led them back to Tennessee, paying for the provisions to get them home out of his own pocket, even surrendering his own horse so that those too sick to walk could ride.

Jackson was not a perfect man, nor did he always take the correct positions, or come down on the right side of every issue, but he was a man of Character, a man of Principle, and not someone who would ever pander on any issue, for any reason. This is what we need from our politicians today.

It should also be noted that Jackson was the only President in the History of our nation to pay off the national debt. That's right, believe it or not, we once had a President who believed that the Government should have to live within it's means. What a concept, that is really something that we could use today.

I keep looking at our political choices today, and wondering, why is it that no one will take a stand? So many want to pander, perhaps it's because they feel that there is no way for them to get elected if they don't tell everyone what they think they want to hear. For me, however, I don't want to hear what they think I want to hear, I want to hear the truth. I want to know what politicians really think, and where they really stand on the issues, and what they would try to do if elected to whatever office they are running for. I do fully understand that once a person is in office, there are times when they must compromise if they want to get anything done at all, but I also want to know that they understand the difference between issues where compromise is OK, and those where you must hold your ground and never give in because it's just that important.

On the other hand, it is kind of funny that Jackson's face appears on the Twenty Dollar Bill, given that he passionately hated paper money, and for very good reasons, but that is for a different day.

I should also point out that I have not failed to notice that I sit here in Florida writing this blog. It was General Jackson who led the campaign to gain Florida as US Territory, and he was also the first Governor of the Territory, being the one to set up the Government of the state initially.

I also wonder if there is something to be said for God smiling on Andrew Jackson. I don't claim to know the mind of God, but if you look at the life of this man, and all the times that he narrowly avoided death, including an assassination attempt while he was President, in which both of the Assassins two guns failed to fire. On top of that though, the coincidence of the Battle of New Orleans in relation to the end of the War of 1812. Even though a Treaty was reached with Great Briton two weeks before the Battle of New Orleans, news of Jackson's utter defeat of the British reached the ears of the American public first, so, when they heard that the War was officially over, it seemed pretty natural to assume that Jackson had won the war. A little something to think about anyway.

Basically, I just want someone on the political scene who will do what is best for the American people, and not what is best for their own political career. Someone who will not pander for votes, and who will not sell out to any special interest for any reason, but will hold to their principles, and really be passionate about the founding principles of the USA, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"O" Please

What do you think the chances are that Oprah's endorsement of Obama is not racially motivated? I suppose it's possible that it's not, but it sure seems fishy doesn't it?

The fact of the matter is that I used to have a measure of respect of Oprah, but no longer. She knows how much power she wields with her viewers, and she has made a conscious choice to use that power and influence to try to cause her legions of followers to vote for Obama. This is quite a difference from a movie star, or some other such person, who influence very few people enough to get them to change their votes. Oprah has an empire centered around her ability to get people to do whatever she tells them to do. She says to read a book, and they spend money to buy the book, and they all read it, she says someone can be trusted, and they all trust that person. What she is doing now is actually reprehensible, and it doesn't matter who she is endorsing.

OK, so here's how I see it. A very large portion of Oprah's audience are women, which makes perfect sense given the type of issues she often addresses on her show, and the format of her show, and other parts of her empire. Also, quite a few of these women are not politically astute, that is to say, they don't care about politics, and often don't bother to vote. The big thing that Oprah offers by entering the political arena is that when she tells her minions to vote, they will, the same way they rush to do her bidding on all other things. And they will certainly vote for whomever she instructs them to.

To be clear, and hopefully avoid some accusations, I'm not saying that these women are stupid, or that they are not able to think for themselves. In fact, I'm sure that a vast majority of them are intelligent women who are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions, unfortunately, they don't. They are so accustomed to letting Oprah tell them what to do, and what to think, that they will have no problem following along when she talks about Mr. B. Hussein Obama.

I'm not questioning that Oprah thinks that Obama would be the best choice for President, though I do have some questions as to whether or not she's being honest with herself about why she thinks that, but that doesn't give her the right to order her hoards of faithful followers to join in his campaign and elect him to office.

Oprah says that she believes that Obama has a bold new vision for America, but that's not really true. His vision may be fairly bold, but it's not really new. People of his political stripe have been trying to turn the USA into a weak, marginalized, Communist state for decades. As scary as this is to say, Hillary's vision for America is actually probably a little less frightening than Obama's. At least in Hillary's quest for personal power, she wants to hold onto the might of the USA to assure her own power in the world. I'm not sure Obama's that savvy.

I know that so far I have spent most of my time on the Republican side of things, and there is a very good reason for that. Since I am a Republican, I am trying to decide for myself who is the one to vote for to be the Republican nominee, and so that is what I have been writing about, but sometimes things come up on the Democratic side that I don't feel I can ignore, and besides, the Primaries will be over soon, and there will be two people running in the major parties, and then I'm sure I'll have a lot to say about the Democrats. Of course, if Giuliani gets the nod, you can follow my quest to find a good third party candidate to vote for in the General election.

It is my opinion that celebrities should keep their mouths shut, and realize that there is no reason for us to care what they say about the people running for political office, or the issues of the day, but when they are of the stature of Oprah, it goes double.

Romney's Speech

Former MA Governor Mitt Romney made a speech about religion in America. All in all it was not a bad speech, in fact, he made a good number of good points. Of course, I have seen comments that some people have made on some political web sites to the effect that if you disagree with anything in the speech, you are a bigot. This is a ridiculous statement, and I intend to address why.

First, Governor Romney was correct in saying that religious freedom in this country is important, in fact, it is critically important. As much as I would like for all people to come to Christ, and embrace Biblical Christianity, it would be a huge mistake to make it an official state religion, for a few reasons. One is, as Romney pointed out, Countries that do have official state religions have very few people who truly embrace that religion, more often than not, it is a showpiece, and not taken very seriously. Secondly, if you have a state sponsored religion, then the State, and not God, determines what stances the church will take, and instead of truly free Worship, you end up with Churches that follow whatever the political winds of the day happen to be. Also, true Faith cannot be forced on an individual, it is, ultimately, something that they must come to on their own, or, more accurately, through the guidance of God, and those Christians that God places in their path.

Another reason why religious freedom is important is morality. And yes, morality is also critically important. It is what many of our laws are based on. Why is murder wrong? Why is stealing wrong? Why is abusing others wrong? Why is cheating people out of their money wrong? Why is anything wrong, if not for morality? And where does morality come from? From God, in the form of Holy Scripture. And other areas of morality, many of which have gone by the wayside, such as sexual purity, faithfulness in marriage, and doing what's right, even when nobody knows, are the backbone of a strong society. With many of these things going by the wayside now, you can already see the breakdown of our culture, and our once Great society (not to be confused with The Great Society) becoming less great every day.

One other aspect, and probably the main point, of Romney's speech was the idea that you can vote for someone who does not share your own faith. In fact he said something to the effect that a persons specific faith is neither reason to vote for them, or reason not to vote for them. I can agree with this to an extent, since you are not embracing the religion or faith of the person that you are voting for, you just think that they would do a good job. That being said, if you firmly believe that you should not vote for a Mormon, that is your belief, and it does not, in any way, as some would say, make you a bigot.

Where I took issue with Romney's speech was something that he said, which is nothing new. He implied that all religions are equally valid. This is something that you hear a lot today, but I have to say, no they are not, and no, that doesn't make me a bigot either. I am well aware that everyone has the right to believe and adhere to any religion that they so choose, and as I said earlier, that is a good thing, but that doesn't mean that I have to see their religion as equal to mine, or, even valid at all as far as that goes. After all, how can I claim to hold fast to my own faith, and then say that some else's religion is equal to it? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." [John 14:6] So, if Jesus is the one and only way to Salvation, how can I then say that a religion that teaches something different from that is equal? I can't. It's not bigotry, it's faith. So, the fact that Romney is a Mormon may have no bearing on my vote, as he has the right to be a Mormon, and I wouldn't be voting for his religion, but that doesn't mean I have to endorse Mormonism as equal to Christianity, and I won't.

On a personal note, today would have been my parents 33 Wedding Anniversary, so, Happy Anniversary Mom, and Dad, we miss you, but thank God we'll see you someday in Glory!

On a Historical note, today marks the 66th Anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, may we never forget.

Artificial Devide

If you haven't seen it, there was a case in Texas where a man saw two men robbing his neighbors house, called 911, and offered to take his shotgun and stop them. The dispatcher told him not to do this, as many as eleven times according to news reports. On the other hand, Mr. Horn, the 911 caller, said that the men were looking at his house, and that he was scared, and that he had the right to defend himself. This went on for quite some time, and most, if not all of the 911 call is available online, if you wish to hear it for yourself. Ultimately Mr. Horn did go outside, and can be heard on the tape firing his shotgun several times, both of the robbers died of their wounds, and both were, apparently, in Mr. Horns yard when he shot them.

First, there is an understandable dispute over how Mr. Horn handled this situation, in that, perhaps he shouldn't have gone outside. Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure of all the circumstances, so I don't know if he should have shot these men or not. If he really shot them out of a vigilante spirit, taking the law into his own hands, then that is wrong. There was a time in history when that was the way things were, and people had no choice but to take the law into their own hands, but in this day and age, it cannot be allowed. If, on the other hand, he honestly felt threatened, and thought that his life, or his property were in danger, that they were indeed coming to his house next, then he was well within his rights to shoot them. So far Mr. Horn has not been charged, though he still could be, but that is being left up to a Grand Jury.

Where things get ridiculous in the whole thing is that people are trying to play the race card. You see, Mr. Horn is white, and the two men, total thugs with long criminal histories as it turns out, were black. Of course, the tape gives absolutely no indications whatsoever that this shooting was in any way racially motivated. The entire issue is either about vigilantism, or self protection, and the debate should rest there. Yet the Black Panthers are out marching, calling for his head on a platter because he shot two black men. My problem here is that the race issue should not be brought up without serious evidence that it was a causal factor in the situation, and in this situation, there is no such evidence.

People have the right to protest, and it makes sense if they honestly don't believe he should have shot the two men at all, regardless of race. Where I take issue is that if these two men had been white, all else being equal, those who are protesting now would be strangely silent.

All of this being said, if it came out someday down the road (which I doubt it will, as it likely would have already) that Mr. Horn was a white supremacist, and had been talking about how much he'd like to kill a black (or any generic non-white) person, then this would be a very different scenario, and it would be understandable for black groups (and I would hope a lot of non-black persons as well) to be calling for his conviction and punishment, but, as I said before, there is no indication of that in this case, at this point.

On another point, I also just read a story where a 29 year old man took his ex-girlfriend (30) and her 7 year old daughter, as well as one of the mothers friends, hostage and making the mothers friend drive the car. They stopped for gas, and the friend took the opportunity to call 911, the first 911 operator hung up on her, according to her statement, then, when she called back, she was told that there was no-one available to come to their aide. The gas station attendant noticed that the woman was crying, and she told him what was going on, and he also called 911, while he was on the phone, he heard gunshots. The 29 year old man shot his ex girlfriend twice, at which time her seven year old daughter jumped over the seat to protect her mother and begged the man to stop, he proceeded to shoot the girl six times. Miraculously, both survived, and are expected to fully recover, and the police did come and arrest the man.

It's hard to believe that this kind of thing happens. There are so many wildly unreal things about this story, and it is such a sad commentary on where our culture is, that people think so much of themselves that a man would even attempt to kill a child out of his selfish anger. And yet it is also a marvelous story of God's mercy that both the mother and her child survived the ordeal. What does this say about our world?

Another Debate

OK, so this morning I finally had the time to watch the Republican CNN/Youtube debate that aired last Wednesday night. I'm sure it's a big shock to everyone that I have quite a bit to say about it.

First, it struck me that Governor Huckabee explained the difference between the issues of abortion and the Death Penalty, which, if you'll recall, was the subject of my last post. His answer on that was quite well put. Of course, he botched another simple answer, but I'll visit that later.

There is no question that CNN's liberal bias showed through, not only failing to properly check out the questioners, but also deliberately choosing some questions which were asked in such a way that it was glaringly obvious that the questioner was a democrat. The most remarkable, and possibly that most famous now, was the gay General (who it turns out wasn't actually a General, but a retired Colonel with the honorary rank of General from the State of California, with no rights to use the title in an official US Army capacity) who is part of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and who CNN knew quite well, being that he had been on the network as a John Kerry supporter during the Presidential race four years ago. Then there was the person with the question about the "Log Cabin Republicans" which was asked by someone who Michelle Malkin was able to very quickly identify as an avowed Obama supporter. And there were a couple of others who's questions were legit, but they shouldn't have been chosen because of the questioners known ties to Democratic candidates. In the General election it would be fine for any American to ask questions of any candidate, but during the Primary contests it needs to be respected that each party is trying to decide on the person that they will nominate, and not try to interfere with that process.

Fred Thompson said the right things most of the time, and had a strong performance, and looked very much like a President. I do think that the questions people have been asking about the level of energy he has been showing in the race so far are fully legitimate, but I still think he seems to have it together, and gave a solid performance. And despite some of the issues that some people seemed to have with his campaign ad, I thought it was great, and it's good that someone is shaking things up and calling the other candidates out on their positions and their records.

Rudy Giuliani showed that he truly is a liberal at heart, but still managed to put sufficient political spin on his answers to hide that fact from some people, primarily those who are looking for any reason to support him... though I can't figure out why.

I have to admit, while I still don't really trust Mitt Romney, he did give a very good performance, and I do feel better about him after the debate than I did before.

Mike Huckabee showed his true colors, and unfortunately, they were clearly political. He talks a good game, but when you break it down and look at his record, it all comes apart. And as for the botched answer, he talked in circles when he was asked what he thought about the Bible. It was the perfect opportunity to say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but he didn't do that. Being a Baptist minister, and always being sure to tell people that, and even calling himself a Theologian, we have the right to expect him to take those stands, and he didn't do it. He sacrificed principle for political expediency. I wouldn't have expected a good answer from Giuliani, and didn't get one, but I did expect something more from Huckabee. The sad fact is though that Romney gave a much better answer to that question.

McCain actually gave a pretty good performance, but his problem is that his support is pretty much set in stone, people already either love him or hate him, and not too many people are likely to change their minds.

Ron Paul came on strong, and did a great job answering a variety of questions. I still don't see him as a viable contender, but he did a great job shaking things up, and showed what I have always known, that he is probably smarter than the entire rest of the field put together. I still don't see where he could win, but he did gain some respect from me at the very least.

I still think that Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter would both be great candidates, but they can't seem to come up with the money, or the media coverage that most of the others are up to their necks in. They both, also, gave very good answers to all the questions that they were included in.

I had hoped that one clear choice would emerge from this debate, but I'm nearly as confused now as I was before I started. In short, I still don't know who I'll vote for come the end of January, but I will pick one by the time we get there, it's just going to take a little more time, and a lot of Prayer.

And if you missed the debate, the intro video of a guy singing a song about the candidates, you really should go to www.youtube.com and search for GOP Debate Song and give it a look, it's really worth the time.

Not Contradictory

There are two issues, both of which I feel strongly about, which some people feel are linked, though they are not. If you happen to be, like me, someone who is Pro-Life, and supports the Death Penalty, you can expect, at some time or another, to hear someone ask how you can reconcile these two, seemingly, opposing points of view. Of course, you are usually being asked the question by someone who supports abortion, while being anti-Death Penalty, but doesn't see their own views as contradictory, and also, usually, fail to see the irony of this situation. However, be that as it may, the real issue here is one of basic communication. Let me explain.

When someone like me is asked this question, "How can you reconcile being both Pro-Life, and in favor of the Death Penalty?" The questioner thinks they are asking, "How can you desire to deny the right of a woman to eliminate a mass of cells from her body, which cannot live on it's own, is not self aware, and is many years away from contributing anything to society, while at the same time you want to kill a full grown adult, who is self aware, self-sufficient, and could be rehabilitated back into being a productive member of society?" While the question I heard was, "Why do you want to protect the life of a little baby, who is fully and completely innocent, totally unable to defend itself, guilty of nothing, while being one of the greatest gifts God ever gave to mankind, while at the same time you think that a vile murderer (and in my opinion you could add child molesters) who has, by their own choices and actions, proven that they have no regard for human life, or the law, or basic human decency, guilty of some of the greatest crimes (on an individual level) known to man, should be put to death?" So, please forgive me if I look at you and say, "DUH!"

It really all comes down to where we place the value. For some, life starts a birth, and is nothing more than an accident of nature, and someones value as a person depends on what they bring to the table. Rights are granted by the State, and the State should not take away life from someone who has already been born. So, if someone even has the potential to be a contributing member of society, regardless of their crimes, they should be given another chance, and another and another, while an unborn baby doesn't even deserve one chance, because, in their view, it's not even alive yet.

On the flip side of this are people like me. Life is created by Almighty God at the time of (or more accurately, before) conception, and is therefore precious, and needs to be protected, and the right to live, or anything else, is also granted by God, and everyone is, in fact, created equal, and has value based on these facts alone. In addition, a person retains these rights as long as they remain innocent of these terrible crimes, but can forfeit these rights by their actions. Also, contrary to what some might tell you, there is nothing "Un-Christian" about the death penalty, as, in the book of Numbers, God clearly instructs Moses that Murderers are to be put to death, and is quite clear on the parameters of what constitutes a crime worthy of death. For us, it really is all about innocence. The baby is innocent and deserves protection, the murderer is not, and deserves death.

So, these two issues are not linked, nor are they in conflict, but they are often reflective of a persons core values and beliefs.

Lest you think that I am a heartless and wanton killer of criminals, let me assure you, just as it is laid out for us in Numbers, I do feel that something as severe as the death penalty should be carefully administered. To put it succinctly, let me quote the Character Gandalf the Grey from the Lord Of The Rings movie (the first one): "Some who live deserve death, but many who die deserve life, can you give it back to them?" Here again, it is about protecting the innocent.