Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In my travels on the Web, I came across an article by Michael Yon, a correspondent who has been spending a good amount of time alongside our troops in Iraq. He offers a very frank portrayal of the war that is truly from the perspective of the soldiers on the ground.
He is far from naive about what is going on over there, and he seems not to be beholden to any political bias, so his perspective is particularly interesting to me.
My main complaint about the "news" that is made available about Iraq and just in general, is that there is always a political motive driving the person or company presenting it. The end result is not really "news" at all, but a subjective view of what is going on based on what the presenter wants you to think or feel about a topic.
This is frustrating to me and I imagine any person who simply wants to know what is really happening. When I am approached and asked what my opinion is on the situation in Iraq, I have to answer truthfully that I do not have enough good information to form a strong opinion. At the end of the day, I am left to doubt the completeness and accuracy of the information I have access to.
Michael Yon seems to me to be genuinely interested in informing, in an un-bias fashion, those who have ears to hear what is happening. I respect that and when he gets flack from the MSM because he doesn't toe the line like the rest of them he responds in an honest and truthful way, without resorting to the kinds of petty attacks he is subject to.
So if you haven't been to his website, have a look at his pictures and articles which show the human side of the war in Iraq, whether the human is your enemy or your friend.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Republican Presidential hopeful was seen on The Ellen Degeneres show earlier today discussing the issue of gay marriage with the openly lesbian host. Here is a key quote which I think sums up his stance on the issue:
I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman, and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue; and I along with many, many others wish you every happiness.
This was in response to Ellen's oft-used comparison between the obstacles homosexuals have encountered trying to gain special rights for their community to that of the Civil Rights struggles of blacks and the fight women went though for their right to vote.
Some conservatives will try to characterize McCain as weak on marriage, mostly based on his refusal to support a Gay Marriage Ban a few years ago in the Senate. They will mischaracterize his motive as anti-traditional marriage, but all he was doing was trying to preserve individual state's rights to decide the issue for themselves without federal "nosing".
I have definite concerns about McCain; his stance on the environment is frightening and in spite of his recent tough talk about immigration, he is definitely weak an that issue, but I am not worried about him on the marriage issue.
I suppose only time will tell if whether or not my confidence is misplaced.
Friday, May 16, 2008
With all of the speculation that conservative voters may not make it to the polls in November, it is difficult to stay motivated and get charged up about exercising my right to vote. I can surely understand the frustration of not believing any candidate really represents your view of the world. It seems like every one of them has their issues, and certainly none are a "perfect match". I also think the message needs to be sent to the GOP that if they don't make some changes, they will not have a party. And maybe sitting out would be one way to get that point across.
With the recent decision by the California Supreme Court making any ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, my perspective changed quite a bit and I find myself feeling a sense of duty and purpose to get to polls in November no matter what.
Now that these 4 activist judges in California have ruled this way, it opens the door for other states to follow suit. Nationally, the California legislature has historically taken the role of setting an example for other state legislatures, especially in family court rulings. This means we need to act fast to reverse this extreme decision that does not reflect the will of the majority or the family values of most American's.
The only way to reverse this decision is to get an initiative on the ballot so the voters can make an amendment to the California Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman". Efforts are already under way to accomplish this, and it looks likely that there will be an opportunity to vote this coming election on a measure to protect this institution that is foundational to ANY society.
This also means that those conservative voters who are looking to punish the GOP by staying home on election day will also miss an extremely important opportunity to have their voice heard on this issue! On top of that, liberal voters who are more motivated (at least so far) could get out the vote and decide the future of marriage for all of us. We cannot sit back in our armchairs and watch this happen!
Remember, there are 2 types of sin:
1. Commission - intentional, where you know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
2. Omission - where you know what is right, but fail to act
If you are not a resident of California, and you think this doesn't, or couldn't impact your state and your family, don't be fooled! It is only a matter of time before citizens of your state who are interested in redefining marriage take their case to the Supreme Court as well (if they haven't already), and your state justices would have an easier time making a similar decision about gay marriage because California has already laid the track.
See ProtectMarriage.com for more details on the Marriage Protection Act, and do your part to protect marriage before it is too late!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I get regular emails from Capitol Resource Institute and the latest news regarding Homosexual Marriage in California is truly disturbing.
In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled today that homosexual marriage bans are unconstitutional.
This is a clear case of judicial activism at it's worst, as California voters were already given the opportunity to have their voices heard on this issue in the year 2000 when Proposition 22 was put on the ballot. At that time, voters decided by overwhelming mandate that they believed the definition of marriage in California should be limited to include one man and one woman.
The California Supreme Court basically ignored that, and decided the fate of our state according to their own political agenda and the political agenda of the homosexual community.
I have stated this before on this blog, but it bears repeating: changing the definition of marriage to "whatever" is not just a cute way for the homosexual community to "express their love", as much as they would like you to think that; it has more to do with legitimizing their perverted lifestyle. If it was only a matter of having the same legal rights as married couples in terms of estate, insurance, housing, etc, they already have those things by way of common law marriage and legal partnership.
On the significantly more dangerous side, you have historical evidence that shows what happens to a society when you take something foundational like marriage and family and re-define it into obscurity; the society crumbles because marriage becomes less necessary and the family institution weakens. Those behind the political homosexual agenda are well aware of this, and the affect that having "2 mommies" or "2 daddies" has on children. But they choose to ignore the statistics and the mountain of evidence because of their extreme politically charged beliefs.
On top of all that, it goes against everything our country was built on to allow a minority voice such as the homosexual political machine to speak for the majority of people in this country who believe homosexuals should have equal civil rights, but that marriage is a privilege that should be exclusive to one man and one woman.
It is crystal clear to me, but people in this country, and apparently our judicial representatives, have given in and bought the lie that the homosexual agenda is pushing.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
This compliments of Rightpundits, which speculates McCain may go with Mike Huckabee for his #2.
This will go absolutely nowhere to win over Conservatives as most were going with Mitt when given the choice between Romney and Huckabee. One interesting question is, would it bring evangelicals to McCain? I believe Mike's Baptist preacher background helped him get by when his record was clearly lacking in terms of true conservative values. As a Christian myself, I see this as a classic case of "pulling the wool" and a "Huckster" V.P. only increases my displeasure for the McCain ticket.
Of course, like the article states, given the choice between Obama and these 2 clowns, what choice do conservatives have really?
I have never liked desperation...
Saturday, May 10, 2008
As we close in on summer, my thoughts turn to outside cooking. I'm sure some of you will be firing up your meat burning instrument of choice as well.
I decided to start a separate blog titled, The Bible, Politics, and BBQ documenting my experiences with barbecuing and grilling; recipes and methods that work well (and some not so well), personal favorite recipes and maybe a good story or 2 about some of the people I have met searching for all things barbecue.
If this sounds interesting, or if you are a barbecue enthusiast and want to, "talk shop" please stop by.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Read an interesting article on Politico by way of Right Pundit (check the roll) warning of impending doom for the GOP in November if they don't run strong campaigns and get some funding.
...in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don’t raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.
While it is a delight to watch the chaos in the Democratic nomination race, and the inevitable defeat of Hillary, the GOP doesn't have the cash or the excitement to beat the Democrats in the general election. The "presumptive Republican nominee" isn't exactly a riveting figure that can bring the party together and we need to be concerned about handing Congressional seats to the Democrats as well.
I have been of the opinion all along that McCain would stand a better chance in November against Hillary than Obama, based mostly on the excitement Obama is able to generate while having no real message. Whether that emotional high lasts, resulting in any real loyalty months from now is yet to be seen.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Caught this article on Newsmax which, to me, hints at his soft stance on illegal (that's right, I said it) immigration. Right along with all U.S. Presidents of our recent history, Democrat or Republican (even the beloved Ronald Reagan), John McCain will forge ahead toward a more "Global Economy". One thing you cannot have if you want to compete in a global economy is pesky borders between countries. After all, that just slows things down and is downright unfriendly; even racist according to some.
Regardless of how the American people feel about illegal immigration, no matter how many promises are made, or strong statements about "sealing the border", we will continue to see our borders become more and more porous and the tide of illegal immigrants will continue to pour across.
I do not like making that prediction, trust me, but I think the writing has been on the wall for a while and it is infuriating that the will of the people can be selectively ignored in this way.