Bullfrog's BLOG

The 90 Minutes I Will Never Get Back...

2008-12-03T13:01:00.000-08:00

Me and my wife have been poking around for a new stroller with bigger wheels to make walks a little easier and found ourselves at "Once Upon A Child", which is a "gently used" children's store. They sell toys, book, clothes, etc., that they have purchased used from folks who have no need of them. The quality of the merchandise is very good, and since my kids grow out of clothes monthly, I like the discount. They also sell brand new merchandise, and we were able to find the stroller we wanted for less than other retailers carrying the same thing, not to mention the owner gave us a 10% off coupon. Nice. Needless to say, I was pleased. Mama got her new jogging stroller and I got to be cheap about it, yes!

Then everything changed...

Mrs. Bullfrog mentioned there was a crafts store around the corner and she wanted to stop in to buy a "few things" to make Christmas decorations. The original plan was for Mama and our daughter to take time together to do this bit of shopping and The Boy and I would go to the park or something. But, here we were, so I conceded.

I have not often ventured into a store like this one, so I don't know if it could be considered "typical", but it had what I have to assume is all a person would need to "make stuff": Baskets, seasonal empty wreaths, cinnamon pine cones, paint, fabric, aisles of ribbon, you get the point. Not to mention I was 1 of maybe 3 guys in the place, which was crawling with women picking over merchandise planning their next project. Of the 3 of "us", 1 was actually carrying a basket and looked pretty happy, while the "other one" and I had been brought by our wives and were making the best of it.

I poked around some and goofed around with my son, trying to keep him from getting squirmy, such is his way when he gets tired of riding around in a shopping cart for too long.

From time to time, wifey would ask questions about this or that "thingamabob" or if I liked a particular gold ribbon more than the next for hanging pine cones on our tree. What she got back was a barely coherent, "Dunno" and/or a shrug of the shoulders. It's not that I really do have an opinion about the gold ribbon and do not want to emasculate myself by sharing, it's really that I have NO OPINION about it. She understands, and doesn't give me grief about it, 1 of the many things I love about my wife.

Then she found some clothy, ribbon-type stuff that needed to be measured and cut by the service department. So she went to the counter and took a number, which put us about 3 people back from the head of the line. I busied myself looking at a computerized sewing machine which was doing some custom embroidery on a blanket or something. It was unattended, so I was intrigued, and my son stopped squirming and asking to be released from the confines of the cart. Bonus.

It was at that point that I got a surprise: The Mrs. handed me her number "60" and asked me to wait and get 2 yards of the ribbon... stuff... I really don't know what it is! It isn't ribbon, but it is long and on a spindle thing... never mind.

I didn't know what to say. I just stared blankly at her while I envisioned what I would look like standing in a crafts store with my son holding a number and a spindle full of "what's-it" asking for "2 yards".

Mama didn't have time to wait for me to think it over, so she handed me everything and said, "I'll be back." and scurried off with our daughter.

So I am standing there in what can only be considered complete disinterest. There is not 1 single thing about this store that I am interested in exploring or purchasing. I made small talk with an older woman who had come to check on the automated embroidery machine after she mentioned she had a grandson about my son's age, which she overestimated at 3. Happens all the time: my son is 50th percentile according to the doctor, but people consistently think he is older.

Anyway, my number was up (I don't think I have ever used that in a literal sense before) and I asked for the lady to cut me off 2 yards and went on my way to find the rest of my family. I found it comforting to be near my wife in such a place as this as I believed it provided an answer to anyone who might ask themselves, "What is he doing in here?"

We spent a little more time looking for the right beads, sequins, felt, and other goodies Mama needed to complete her Christmas decorating plans. After about an hour and a half, we were leaving and I have to be honest, I was exhausted and have vowed never to return to such a place as it holds nothing for me.

That said, the decorations are turning out quite nicely and the kids are having a blast helping out. Thank God for women.

Lazy Blogging...

2008-12-02T14:01:00.001-08:00

I decided to take a week off before the end of the year, and accidentally scheduled it right after the 4 day Thanksgiving weekend. A stroke of genius, as now I have eleven days away from work (aside from compulsively checking my work email, don't tell the Mrs.!).

So far it has been really relaxing, and although I anticipated having more time to blog than usual, I have found that I only even get online once or twice a day for a few minutes. So I have been checking the blog roll and stopping by, not commenting much. I guess you could call it "Lazy Blogging".

I have been spending most time outdoors with the family as this time of year is ideal for it in the desert valley where we live: cold mornings and afternoons rising to about 70 degrees with very clear blue skies! We had my wife's father over for a couple days, which was a blessing. My son really bonded with "Gampa", a very cool thing to see!

I have been cooking a bit and will probably finally get my BBQ rib recipe up on my recipe blog shortly. I also made some killer bratwurst this week, so I will probably scribble that down as well.

By the way, the picture I chose may imply that I am doing some fishing while on sabbatical. I WISH!

What I Am Thankful For

2008-11-26T10:31:00.000-08:00

This time of year for me, and probably most of us, definitely causes me to reflect on my life. Good or bad, I have always been a blessed man and walk in the assurance that I have experienced nothing except that which is from God's own hand.

Above all else, I am thankful for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave me life eternal and the opportunity to glorify and enjoy Him forever. He did this for no other reason than it pleased Him to do so.

The biggest blessing in my life today is my beautiful wife, who is easily the best friend I have ever had and who loves me with an unconditional love. She is also an excellent mother, and I leave for work every morning with peace of mind, knowing our children are in the most capable and caring hands.

The 2 children God has blessed us with are 2 of the most amazing little people, and it is a privilege to know them and have the responsibility to lead them to God through my guidance and example. These 3 people are my heart, and I pray that I will learn to serve them better by covering them with God's word, prayer, and my affection.

The body of Christ, which is the church, has been an amazing source of support, encouragement, and accountability wherever we have found ourselves in life, and I praise God for providing this.

Every circumstance in life is a blessing, whether it is character built through difficulty, or rest sought in times of plenty, and I trust the wisdom of The Most High to get me through all of them!

An Interesting Hypothetical

2008-11-24T21:06:00.000-08:00

I couldn't resist linking this article from Patterico's Pontifications.

One of the readers there posed a hypothetical alternative to the abortion question that I think is very thought provoking. When the question was asked of a pro-choice supporting woman and a pro-life woman, the reactions were interesting and unexpected.

Here is the hypothetical:

Suppose the technology existed to safely remove a fetus from a womb at any gestational stage for incubation elsewhere until birth. If such “no-death abortion” was available to any woman who wanted it, would most abortion rights supporters stand down?

In the case of the pro-choice female, she was still very much against this form of "safe-abortion".

I would like to know what you all think, but I would also like to echo some rules of discussion posted by Patterico:

I’d appreciate it if you could keep the usual stuff about murder and evil and so forth to a minimum. Like zero. I’m more interested in a dispassionate discussion.

Let's keep comments limited to specific concerns raised by the hypothetical itself and not let the conversation devolve into emotionally charged vitriol. I also reserve the right to moderate if things get out of hand.

Good News! Obama Appears to Be Listening!

2008-11-23T20:03:00.001-08:00

It seems as if the reality check that is our economy and the nature of economics itself has caused Obama to go back on his promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts. In all likelihood, he will allow them to expire in 2011 as originally designed by the Bush administration.

From myway via Patterico, here is a quote from a top Obama aid:

Obama's plans, outlined by his transition team on television talk shows, could put aside his campaign pledge to repeal a Bush tax cut for the wealthy. With the downturn in the economy, those tax cuts may remain in place until they are scheduled to die in 2011, said William M. Daley, an economic adviser. "That looks more likely than not," he said.

Okay, so even if they are still pushing the "tax cuts for the rich" angle (and I must be rich, because I remember my tax cut rolling in courtesy of "W"), this still proves that down deep, Obama is a "supply-sider" after all!

Seriously, I am encouraged that Obama isn't blindly keeping keeping all of his rhetorical promises, the reprieve will be nice. This also means, at least for the next couple years, Obama will borrow and spend instead of tax and spend. But we are used to that by now.

Come 2011, I shall batten down the hatches.

Morality and Conscience

2008-11-21T15:17:00.000-08:00

We all make decisions every day that impact us in a negative or positive way. These can be financial in the form of how we spend money, social in the form of how we choose to interact with people, or political in the choices we make to be informed about strategic issues and write our representatives, cast our votes, and let our voices be heard. These are just a few of many examples, but all of these decisions have logical consequences that are beneficial or not so beneficial; if I choose to spend my pay check on DVD's, my kids won't have enough to eat, but if I carefully make a budget and stick to it, my family has all we need to get along.

Aside from the obvious and practical consequences, we are also subject to the tyranny of our own conscience. If an atheist chooses to break God's law by murdering another or stealing his goods, even if he is not caught by the authorities and punished, his own conscience will condemn him! That is not to say that over time, one practicing theft will not grow callous and have an easier time committing the crime.

Conversely, the individual and society as a whole benefits from living according to Biblical principles and listening to their conscience, whether they are trying to glorify God or not.

The Bible explains the role of the conscience this way:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Romans 2:14,15

I can't help but think of O.J. Simpson who for all intents and purposes did get away with murder by escaping legal consequence. But his life since then reflects a man who is certainly not content and I am inclined to think he carries a very guilty conscience with him wherever he goes and maybe even wishes he had been convicted and been sent to prison to pay for his crimes. As anyone who has violated their conscience knows, it can be terrible.

The fact is our actions have consequences and these consequences apply universally, and we are aware of right and wrong from a very early age. My toddlers remind me daily of this as they demonstrate an awareness of what is sin. In their childish folly, they choose to do what they know is wrong because they simply enjoy it! It is then my job to introduce a consequence that is proportional to the pleasure of that act so they choose not to go that route next time around. This is done in hope that they will choose to avoid much more serious consequences later in life.

Whether you acknowledge a Creator or not or have any belief in a universal literal moral code such as the Bible, this awareness of sin proves that morality exists. As to where the laws come into the picture, this can be treated as a "chicken and egg" problem, as some believe the laws of our land establish a moral code. I don't believe this moral code was created as much as our laws reflect and reinforce existing social taboos that originate in the conscience. That conscience that is created by a very real and all powerful God.

I believe morality is created by God and designed to preserve our precious liberty and this is absolutely universal. So essentially, you are living by the "rules" whether you believe in them or not.

Is The Honeymoon Over Already?

2008-11-21T10:21:00.000-08:00

I expected at some point Obama's most liberal supporters would experience a giant collective hang-over; it seemed inevitable after expectations were set so unrealistically high during Obama's campaign. But I anticipated the buyers remorse to set in maybe a few months into next year, after Obama had taken office and had an opportunity to actually do some stuff.

Not surprisingly, Obama's "Clintonesque" cabinet, including the almost certain appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is not helping him win over his base supporters. Add to that the forgiveness of Joe Lieberman by Democrats for what some considered to be a betrayal of the party, namely his support of John McCain's presidential campaign and attendance at the RNC, and the result is some unhappy folks. Some of Obama's most loyal following who were celebrating a future of new hope and a different kind of government on November 4th are already showing signs of having buyers remorse.

From KOS, courtesy of Daniel Harper over at Pajamas:

Kos, from the radically left DailyKos, called the decision to keep Lieberman as chairman of his committee “idiotic.” And, in another post, the radical Left’s standard bearer derided the Democratic Party as being “spineless capitulators” for allowing Lieberman to keep his post.

As Harper suggests, maybe Obama is showing a more moderate, bipartisan side in his treatment of Lieberman. And that would maybe be a good thing, but I am frankly baffled at the possibility of Hillary as Secretary of State. There is no debating whether or not a Clinton addition to Obama' cabinet aligns with the "Change" mantra, but it would at least be understandable and forgivable if Senator Clinton had the pedigree for the job. Her foreign policy credentials are limited to visits to foreign countries as First Lady, where she acted in a nondiplomatic capacity. She certainly is no Condi, that's for sure.

It is anyone's guess what Obama is up to, but it goes without saying he has created quite a bit of drama, especially for someone who has yet to actually assume the office of President. Time will tell whether this let-down will have any political impact.

A New Approach

2008-11-20T09:53:00.000-08:00

I have been doing less blogging lately, although I have been reading yours and commenting when time permits. The political arena has quieted some, and aside from the "What exactly WILL Obama do?" projections, there isn't alot politically to talk about.

This has given me time to be a little introspective and re-evaluate my approach to sharing with those who I come into contact with on the blogosphere. My last post, The Right and Wrong Way to Debate reflects this.

It occurs to me I have been caught up in the political hype that has dominated this election year, and have exhausted myself trying to make political, intellectual, and social arguments for or against this issue or another. The truth is, I have a strong Biblical world view and I have been holding back on making an argument purely from this position because for any issue that is important to me, a good social argument can be made. It has been an interesting exercise, and has actually encouraged me in my faith as I see our society and culture, in good times and bad, reminding me that God is on His throne where he belongs and that He is wise and good (more on this in my next post).

As I have painstakingly made my arguments or rebuttals I have found that, when all is said and done, people believe what suits them and aren't likely to be won over by logic. No matter how intellectually sound your argument may be, there is always someone who will have a rebuttal that amounts to, "Well, that's just not fair!", or "I don't like that." What matters is not that you can out argue a person, but what is the basis of your argument.

The Bible explains it this way:

My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
Colossians 2:2-4

What this tells me is I need to stop half-stepping and simply represent the Biblical world view that I am called to.

I feel a bit like Jerry McGuire, writing his memo suggesting, "Fewer clients", because I fear those who turn away because they don't want to risk being "preached to". And indeed I have been rejected before and even endured hostility for sharing what is in the Bible. But I rest in this:

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
Romans 8:15

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."
Matthew 5:11

In that same Spirit, I have started putting to paper (so to speak) my life story in the form of a separate auto-biographical blog, to be announced later. I started doing this a while ago in another post, "Testimony of Jeremiah Robinson". That is the story of how I came to know God in a personal way, and I was inspired to complete the story by adding the details of my life before Christ and what has happened since my conversion. Not that the story of how I got to where I am today is particularly interesting (although I have some good stories to tell) but because I want to share, with those who are interested in reading, who I really am. In this way, the conversations I have with others in the blogosphere take on a new context and meaning, and by being vulnerable in sharing I hope to encourage others to do the same. This is the same approach I take when building a relationship with someone who is in my life, I try to be as transparent as I can.

As I work on it, it has grown to be fairly lengthy so rather than make one huge post or series pf posts, I decided to have a separate blog where the biography will be split into logical parts. As each chapter is finished, I will provide a link so the interested can have a read.

(Photo: Ron Smid)

The Right and Wrong Way to Debate

2008-11-15T11:41:00.000-08:00

I think I may have posted something similar to this when I first hit the blogosphere. Ah, I remember it like it was yesterday, I somehow ended up at Church Secretaries blog. Anybody familiar with him? Anyway, Church had posted about something I was interested in, and I inadvertently misunderstood the premise of the argument and replied with what was essentially a classic "straw man". This was responded to with a thorough verbal thrashing about what a straw man was, as well as a detailed synopsis of my ineptness in general. Some condescending things were said, and I had a brief period of disillusionment where I wondered if blogging was really for me.

As you may have noticed, I am not that easily discouraged, and overall I really enjoy blogging as it helps me to express my thoughts and it gives me a chance to explore my own views on (mostly) strategic issues in comparison with those of my fellow bloggers.

Obviously, there are no official rules of blogging in terms of etiquette or what can be discussed, aside from those who make their own blog-specific rules. I personally am pretty loose and don't regulate unless it is SPAM or someone gets too personal. The ONE person I was forced to ban since starting this blog can testify to that.

I even welcome discussion on pretty much anything as I find the process of sharing information to be interesting and a good part of the time edifying as well.

The things that are a bit of a turn-off for me, and that I try to avoid, although not always successfully thanks to my penchant for making a point and having the last word (yes, I am aware, and trying to be better):

1. Keep emotion out of it as much as possible.

Yes, emotions are valid, but my experience has shown me that being overly emotional while making a point about say, legislation, doesn't add much to the exchange; except that it inhibits folks ability to think clearly and gives someone a moment to vent. I am not a mindless drone, and can get pretty wrapped up in issues that are close to my heart, but ultimately, how I "feel" about a particular issue is less valuable than how I came to my conclusions logically.

2. Don't be condescending.

For me, this is a "conversation killer" and is a sure-fire way to get rid of me (make a note). It is a mistake to arrive at someone's blog, read the title or their brief "About Me" blurb, and assume you know everything about them. If you want clarification, just ask, I do it all the time and sometimes people oblige me.

3. Be respectful, as if the person you are addressing is across from you.

I think the anonymity provided by the internet is good in that it gives people more courage to be honest who may otherwise be bashful about expression themselves. At the same time, people are also more likely to be vicious or curse someone out because they can do it with little consequence. Keep the venom-filled, hateful vitriol out of it and take a self-defense class or something.

4. The web is virtual, people are not.

The web is a great way to explore, and it is convenient, but the down side is you can forget you are talking to a real person, and full expression is impossible because there is NO body language. Being clear and making no few assumptions outside of what has been stated explicitly is a good rule of thumb.

Other than that, have fun, try to learn and don't let the blogosphere be the extent of your involvement in important issue. Even for the busy, or just lazy person, the web provides alot of tools for you to be actively involved in issues that merit it.

Angry Gay, Anti-Prop 8 Mob Attacks Elderly Woman

2008-11-12T10:29:00.000-08:00

On election day in my home state of California Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution of California to define marriage as "between a man and a woman", passed overwhelmingly with 52.3% of voters voting "Yes". Ever since then, the gay community and those who sympathize with their assertion that they "deserve" to re-define marriage to include themselves, have taken to the streets in angry, disorganized, aggressive mobs in an attempt to intimidate citizens and our state government.

This is not a peaceful gathering of people who sincerely want to have their voices heard. The video above is an example of selfish rage aimed at anyone who would dare to defy their agenda. The woman in the video had just as much right to be there holding her cross to express her religious views and be a voice of dissent on this important issue. She was calm and polite, even after her sign was aggressively taken from her, thrown to the ground, and trampled by a bunch of guys half her age and twice her size. When she was interviewed by the reporter, she continued to be civil and polite, only asking that she have the freedom to speak her mind.

The icing on the cake was at the end of the video, when the news anchor commented that there was, "Anger and hatred on both sides of this issue". If anyone can show me the mobs taking to the streets after 4 state supreme court justices overturned the will of a majority of California voters back in June when they declared marriage to be a "fundamental right"" and overturning Proposition 22, I will concede that point.

Some advice to the gay mob: don't ask me to peacefully tolerate, or accept, your lifestyle, unless you at least plan to act in similar fashion when I speak out.

Update:
69 year old citizen of Palm Springs, CA, Phyllis Burgess, is pressing charges after being encouraged by law enforcement to do so. Good for you, Phyllis.

Hat tip: GreyGhost

Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T12:22:00.000-08:00

This blog was inspired by Tao over at A Radical Perspective, who chose to acknowledge the significance of this day and pay homage to those who literally put their lives at risk, partially so we bloggers can have a free exchange of ideas that include critical analysis of our government and it's policies.

I have known and spoken to a few veterans, and am constantly amazed at those who choose to do what they do.

My grandfather served as Chief Damage Control in the Navy and was stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked. As the story goes, he traded duty with a friend so he could get shore leave at a more ideal time, only to hear later that his friend died during the attack. Had he kept his assigned post, he may have never met my grandmother and I would not be here. He traveled the globe and had some amazing stories to tell.

My father enlisted in the Army and was stationed in Vietnam. He was fortunate enough to be stationed behind friendly lines and is alive today to tell the story.

When I was 10, I had a stepfather who was in the Navy, stationed aboard the U.S.S. Sterett, a cruiser. He took the family on Westpac, and we lived in the Philippines for 2 years, '84-'86. It was an experience I will never forget. We didn't live on the military base, but chose to live in Olongapo City, so we got the "whole experience". This was just a year or 2 before the military lease on the base at Subic Bay expired and we were effectively booted out of country. At the time I was there, the sentiment towards Americans, especially those in the military, was very bad. It is a truly beautiful country full of good people with old fashioned values. Even as a boy, I realized the people there did not enjoy the same liberties enjoyed by Americans, and I remember being extremely happy after completing the 26 hour trip back to the States. I literally wanted to kiss the ground when I stepped off that plane!

I think any citizen who voices a disdain for the U.S. should spend a mandatory 6 months in a 3rd world country; it will give you a new appreciation for the freedom we enjoy and a renewed respect for those who spend and lose their lives on foreign shores protecting those freedoms.

May God bless the United States of America, and our brave men and women in the U.S. armed forces, past, present, and future.

Some More Obama Appointments...

2008-11-09T20:00:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Dick Morris, I have a few more appointments to add to the list:

Obama-Biden Transition Project

John Podesta - Co-chairman of the transition team. Formerly White House Chief of Staff under Clinton (1998-2001).

Carol Browner - On the advisory board of the transition team. Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for both Clinton terms and is the longest-serving administrator in the history of the agency.

Federico Pena - Another Transition advisory board member. Served as United States Secretary of Energy under Clinton.

Bill Daley - Secretary of Commerce under Clinton, named to Obama's transition advisory board.

Larry Summers - Named to Obama Transition Economic Advisory Board. Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton and was President of Harvard University.

Susan Rice - Also named to the Obama-Biden Transition Project advisory board, after serving as a senior foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign. Served under Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs as well as serving on the National Security Council.

Michael Froman - Top executive at Citigroup now advising the transition process.

Stephanie Cutter - Chief Spokesperson to Obama-Biden Transition Project after serving as senior advisor to the Obama Presidential campaign. She was Deputy Communications Director under Clinton, Associate Administrator for Communications at the E.P.A., Communications Director for Edward M. Kennedy, Communications Director for the DNC, and campaign spokeswoman to the Kerry campaign.

Christopher Edley - Dean of U.C. Berkley and former professor to Obama, now serving on the Transition Project advisory board.

Maria Echaveste - Wife of Christopher Edley (previous), formerly an advisor to Bill Clinton, and Deputy Chief of Staff. Attended U.C. Berkley and now serves as an advisor to Obama's transition team.

Christine Varney - Personnel counsel for Obama-Biden Transition Project. Served as a Federal Trade Commissioner under Clinton as well as Secretary to the Cabinet.

They all have similar pedigrees: law school, serving under Clinton in some capacity and involved in liberal organizations. Dick Morris noted that this certainly doesn't LOOK like the administration designed for change, it just looks like the Clinton administration "part deux". No matter how you look at it, this team is very partisan and seems to indicate "making nice" with Republicans is not a high priority for Obama. As the Democrats have the power right now in pretty much every regard, an Obama administration certainly isn't obligated to reach out to the GOP, but Obama definitely said he would if he got elected. I suppose time will tell.

Profiles of Obama's White House: Senior Adviser David Axelrod

2008-11-06T20:38:00.000-08:00

Born: 1955, Lower East Side, Manhattan, New York

Education

Graduate of University of Chicago 1977, majored in political science. Interned at the Chicago Tribune during his undergraduate studies.

Career

Political consultant based in Chicago, Illinois. He is best known as a top adviser to Barack Obama, first in Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois and later as chief strategist for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Senior partner of AKP&D Message and Media and was a political writer for the Chicago Tribune. Operates ASK Public Strategies.

Supporter of Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool, who helped Axelrod found his firm (under the name Axelrod and Associates).

Longtime strategist for Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley and styles himself a "specialist in urban politics."

Resume

1977: Hired by the Chicago Tribune

1981: Became the youngest political writer for the Chicago Tribune

1984: Communications director for US Senator Paul Simon; within weeks he was promoted to co-campaign manager.

1985: Formed a political consultancy, Axelrod & Associates.

1987: Worked on the successful reelection campaign of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor.

2004: Spokesman for the presidential campaign of John Edwards.

2006: Consulted for several campaigns, including for the successful campaigns of Eliot Spitzer in New York's gubernatorial election and for Deval Patrick in Massachusetts's gubernatorial election. Axelrod also served in 2006 as the chief political adviser for Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel for the U.S. House of Representatives elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 seats.

2008: Chief strategist and media adviser for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Axelrod has early ties with newly appointed Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel as they both worked for Paul Simon in 1984 and both spent their early careers in Chicago.

Interestingly, he specializes in campaigning specifically for black politicians. As reported by the New York Times, he was criticized by Reverend Jeremiah Wright for "while he was expert at promoting black candidates with white voters, he did not know much about relating to the black community...They're spiriting him away from people in the African-American community. David doesn't know the African-American church scene."

He has a reputation for being cool-headed and having a knack for diffusing things.

Obviously, by his resume, he is a smart guy and a quick read. So far, it appears Obama is surrounding himself with sharp people.

Profiles of Obama's White House: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

2008-11-06T20:28:00.000-08:00

Born: March 29, 1971

Career

Political consultant.

Education

1989 graduate of Auburn High School in Auburn, Alabama and graduated cum laude from North Carolina State University with a degree in political science.

Resume

Served as communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and in general has specialized as a political consultant for Senate campaigns.

2004: Press secretary of Democratic candidate John Kerry. After leaving the campaign in reaction to the firing of Jim Jordan, Gibbs became spokesman for Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values, a Democratic group formed to stop the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean.

2008: Communications director for U.S. Senator Barack Obama and Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Profiles of Obama's White House: Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

2008-11-06T15:02:00.000-08:00

As part of my commitment to do what I can as a citizen to keep the upcoming administration accountable, I am doing a little research into the appointments Obama is making to his cabinet. I will do a short profile on each appointment as they are made official, starting with Rahm Emmanuel, who accepted the position of White House Chief of Staff earlier today:

Born: November 29, 1959. Retained Israeli citizenship up until 1991.

Career

Before accepting the position of Chief of Staff, Emmanuel served as a Democratic member of the House of Representatives since 2003, representing Illinois's 5th congressional district which covers much of the north side of Chicago and parts of suburban Cook County. He was the 4th ranking Democrat in the House, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer and Whip Jim Clyburn.

Resume

Began his political career with the now defunct public interest and consumer rights organization Illinois Public Action.

1984: Worked for Democrat Paul Simon's election to the U.S. Senate.

1988: National campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

1989: Senior advisor and chief fundraiser for Richard M. Daley's victorious campaign for Mayor of Chicago.

Served then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign as finance committee director, and was instrumental in Clinton's win in 1992.

1993 - 1998: Senior advisor to Clinton as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives.

1999 - 2002: Accepted a high paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort investment bank in Chicago.

2005: Named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

2006: Received praise for his stewardship of the DCCC during the highly successful 2006 election cycle.

Committees

Ways and Means - Chief tax-writing committee of the United States House of Representatives. This Committee has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of other programs including:
-Social Security
-Unemployment benefits
-Medicare
-Enforcement of child support laws
-Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal welfare program
-Foster care and adoption programs

Political Views

Indicated his support of President Bush's position on Iraq, but said he believed the president needed to better articulate his position to the American people.

Believes in affordable and available healthcare for all Americans.

Has maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record.

Depending on who you ask, Emmanuel is either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, but from what I have read, he seems most vocal in support of Israel.

Controversies

An article from 2006 raised speculation regarding a possible connection between Emanuel's Congressional election success and convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.

USA Today reported in late January 2007 that Emanuel failed to disclose that he was an officer of a family charity, a violation of law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

It has been said of Emmanuel that he is far from partisan and that this is a sign that Obama does not intend to act in a bipartisan fashion. My only response to that is: he really is not obligated to do any such thing considering the majority his party has. Rahm also has a reputation for being a "pit bull" and some of his bio (courtesy of Wikipedia) confirms he can be tenacious. Obama has commented that he can, "Get things done", so I suppose that was the appeal; not that Emmanuel makes nice but that he is effective. Whether Obama really will reach across the aisle and include Republicans remains to be seen.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Will Obama Move to the Center?

2008-11-06T08:38:00.000-08:00

I know, it sounds almost rhetorical, but there seems to be 2 schools of thought on the subject of just how liberal the Barack Obama administration will be:

Some are saying he will be forced by the economic mess to at least delay his multi-billion dollar initiatives because he wouldn't dare raise taxes on businesses (which will be necessary to pay for them) at a critical time such as we find ourselves in. Obviously raising taxes on businesses now would exacerbate our economic crisis, and I would like to think Presient-elect Obama is smart enough to see the writing on the wall; the stock market volatility, retail numbers in the tank, predictions about historically high unemployment, etc, and take a more moderate approach.

Another argument is that Obama will have no choice but to do the bidding of a Democratic congress with almost filibuster-proof control. Dick Morris compares Obama's situation to the dilemma President Clinton faced while in office.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic caucus or you won’t get our support.

Clinton, faced with being ineffectual as President, was forced to comply.

Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments. Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork...

This seems to me to be the more realistic viewpoint. Even if Obama seeks to take a more moderate or centrist appraoch and ride out the economic crisis, that choice may not be his to make.

Is Gay Marriage a Civil Rights Issue?

2008-11-05T12:00:00.000-08:00

Arizona, Florida, and my home state of California all had marriage amendments that sought to protect traditional marriage by limiting it's definition to a man and a woman. I have spoken at length about the danger of loosening this definition in the name of accommodating those who seek to do so on a purely political or emotional basis, so I won't belabor that point here.

The votes are in and all 3 states passed their ballot measures (gasp! even Kalee-foor-neea!). So marriage is safe in these states, at least for now...

In listening to Rush Limbaugh, I picked up some interesting data on the voters who passed these measures broken down by race. Keep in mind when you read these numbers that the homosexual lobby has always sought to paint their community as the "new minority" and are constantly trying to draw comparisons between their struggle for "equal rights" and the civil rights struggle of blacks in the 1960's.

Voting "Yes" to strictly define marriage:

California

Whites: 51%
Blacks: 70%

Florida

Whites: 60%
Blacks: 71%

Arizona

Whites/Hispanics: 55%
Blacks: Yet to tally, but somewhat safe to assume similar results as other 2 states

Effectively, these amendments to protect traditional marriage would not have passed without the black vote. Ironically, if Obama had not been on the ballot, the black vote may not have generated the numbers necessary to pass these amendments. The very community that the homosexual lobby wants so badly to be identified with has spoken loud and clear about whether they feel Gay Marriage is a civil rights issue or not.

And so it shall be...

2008-11-05T06:04:00.000-08:00

Shock and Awe

Wow, I was in my living room last night, kiddies freshly bathed and tucked in, ready for a late night of listening to the totals roll in. I was not prepared for the utter lack of suspense and voter mandate that was to usher in our next President elect. The people of America have certainly spoken, and loudly.

Congratulations

Congratulations to President elect Barack Obama for running an effective campaign and captivating the hearts of millions of Americans with his message of a new kind of administration. The same congratulations goes out to his wife Michelle, who obviously was an outstanding source of encouragement and support. As for the Obama girls, it will be cool to see kids running around on the White House lawn. You said many time during your campaign that you wanted to, "Get to work for the American people", well here is your chance. Serve.

History

It has already been said, and will likely be said many times more, that the historic nature of this event cannot and should not be ignored. We have just made a black man President of the United States of America for the 1st time in our history, and the reaction I saw and heard from people of all colors and walks of life last night on the news shows that this significance is certainly felt by all.

A Class Act

Senator John McCain made a concession speech that reflected his patriotism and class, and I am certain he has many years left in him working for America in the Senate. His refusal to really go negative was downright frustrating at times, but in the end I think he valued his integrity more than the win, which is admirable.

What's Next

For conservatives, my hope is that our representation will take this loss for what it is: a wake up call. The basic fact of the matter is, you cannot continue to call yourselves conservatives while at the same time spend like crazy, leave our borders wide open to terrorists, and in general NOT act conservative. One of my local Republican representatives went on last night with his reaction and said exactly what needed to be said: conservatives need to get back to traditional conservative values as demonstrated by Ronald Reagan. You all have 4 years to make some serious changes; GET TO WORK!

Marriage Safe in California!

Proposition 8, which added an amendment to the Constitution of California defining marriage as between one man and one woman, passed with flying colors with basically 54% of the voters voting "Yes". To be honest, I was more concerned about this issue than all other ballot issues, or even who would become President. I was astounded by the number of people in the media that were holding out hope that the proposition would be struck down. The votes for "Yes" lead in the count all night, but news folks kept saying, "It isn't over yet, there are still votes to be counted." This would seem reasonable enough, except they had no problem calling other propositions that were not as close. Even the Mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, got on and said he would find it hard to believe Californians would pass such a measure that would "deny rights to people."

That was the nature of the "No On 8" campaign; generalize and reduce marriage to a pronouncement of love and not a means for society to continue to exist through healthy relationships that naturally result in children. I know that is wrong, and it looks like most California voters agree with me.

I am sure this is not over, as the homosexual lobby will not give up and are well financed. For now, the people have spoken.

As for me...

I will continue to watch the administration closely and keep calling and writing my representatives to make sure my voice is heard. You should do the same. I find comfort in the fact that ultimately it is God who appoints leaders over us, and that His wisdom is far above my own.

2008-10-18T14:13:00.000-07:00

For some who read this, the phrase, "None of the Above" may bring back memories of the 1985 Richard Pryor movie, "Brewster's Millions" (okay, just me then?). Of course, I am actually talking about the upcoming election and my intent to vote 3rd party. As I don't expect a 3rd party candidate to actually prevail over either of the 2 major party candidates, "None of the Above" is appropriate.

What insanity is this? You might ask. Aren't you effectively wasting a vote by not voting for a candidate who has a real chance of winning? I also understand that, to some, this may seem like a protest vote only made to make a statement, and not in good conscience. I made the point before that it is impossible to "waste a vote" as long as your vote is cast based on your understanding of the issues and your candidate's ability to represent you on those issues, and I will not belabor that here.

The purpose of this article is to further explore the concept of voting 3rd party and my rationale for doing so. I will start by exploring the alternatives:

A Vote for Barack Obama

I would like to be clear that Barack Obama represents possibly the opposite of everything I look for in a candidate for President. He is a family man, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing what he feels is best for his country. His stance on the issues that are important to me (no matter which side he is on at present) do not represent mine at all. He is running his campaign on the premise that Big Government needs to step in to cure the ills of society, because the "unwashed masses" do not have the will or the know-how to do so for themselves. His views generally reflect a basic lack of faith in the American people. Despite his statements that, "We are who we have been looking for", he seems to be more interested in getting "we" to vote for his administration so they can step in and socialize everything. This is tantamount to limiting the liberties of Americans, not protecting it. Barack Obama's worldview flies in the face of the vision of our founding fathers which are described in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These men saw the damage that absolute government control could do, and sought to limit government instead, leaving the administration to focus on protecting the liberties of it's citizens, nothing more

A Vote for John McCain

While John McCain is a fine individual as well and has served his country admirably during his time in the military and as a Senator, he is not anywhere near conservative enough to be compared with the likes of Ronald Reagan, as much as those in denial and McCain himself would like us to think so. No matter how many times McCain squeezes out the phrase, "My friends" he in no way reminds me of Reagan, and in fact I resent the fact that he thinks anyone would be taken in by it. Reviewing his voting record makes him soft on some key issues as well. The most glaring to me is his historically weak stance on illegal immigration. He has consistently voted for softer borders, and in 2006 supported a bill basically granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. While he has more recently taken a harder line on this issue with tough talk about securing our borders, he still makes statements alluding to his belief that amnesty is fair and the best thing for America. This is significant because this reveals a little about his worldview, which apparently holds less respect for our country's sovereignty as I believe it should. His choice of Sarah Palin for V.P. certainly peaked my interest for a time, but what is exciting about McCain's campaign is Sarah Palin, not John McCain, who is running for the highest office in the United States.

In recent history, like before the primaries, John McCain was far from the favorite in conservative circles and I think many breathed a sigh of relief when his campaign lost it's viability and he seemed done this go around. Those reservations many held about McCain still hold true today. This man has not changed in the last 8 months, so while many may think I am foolish for voting 3rd party, the worst I can be accused of is holding to my principles.

You may have picked up a bitter tone in my description of McCain, and I think the reason for that is, while he may be more Conservative than Obama and arguably the lesser of 2 evils, he is less genuine than Obama. Shocked? Please allow me to explain. With Obama, you get what you ask for, everything is on the table. People who support Obama do so because they hold to the same beliefs that he does, that the government has a responsibility to rescue us from ourselves and act as a "nanny" for Americans. Conservatives will not vote for him because they know exactly where he is coming from and what he intends to do and disagree with him. The problem with McCain is, we really have no idea what to expect from his proposed administration because what he says today is not consistent with what he has done while in the Senate, nor is it consistent with what he was saying before the primaries. Add to that the utter failure of many self-described conservatives in the administration to demonstrate any real level of conservative principle and you can call me fed up.

With all of the talk of party loyalty and the fear of the Republican Party falling out of power, I would like to take some time to explore what a McCain administration would do to conservatism and the Republican Party vs. 4 years of an Obama administration.

Conservatives have endorsed McCain, not because of his record, or because they are confident in his ability to promote conservative views so much as because he has the right label and the only alternative is Obama. If he is elected, McCain, a "maverick" with a reputation for reaching across the aisle, will likely be a very effective President; not because he will have any real influence over what is likely to be a filibuster-proof, overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. On the contrary, he will agree with them more than disagree and tons of legislation designed to support a very liberal agenda will pass. When these policies fail, and they will, McCain and Republicans will catch the blame and 2012 could become very interesting for Hillary or even Obama again, who will be able to talk about how "look where 12 years of a Republican President has gotten you".

An Obama administration will set out to do exactly what we could expect. Ultra-liberal policies the likes we have not seen since the Carter administration. We will all get taxed to death as we sit and watch just how ineffective and disastrous the socialist utopian dream really is. Just like the Carter 4 years ushered in 8 years of Reagan conservatism, these events would likely do the same. Americans will get exactly what they asked for in Obama and I predict they will decide it isn't all it was cut out to be.

So I argue that, while 4 years of McCain would not only be a violation of conscience, it would also hurt the conservative cause more than help, while an Obama administration would force conservative citizens and representatives to wake up and demand proper representation rather than settling for the lesser of 2 evils.

Platform of the Constitution Party

2008-10-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

In reviewing the platform set forth by the Constitution Party, I realize it reflects exactly what the name of the party implies: a purely constitutional form of government as established by our founding fathers.

Here are some key excerpts that make this party appealing to me, a more complete list can be found here:

Sanctity of Life

The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

Congress

The Congress of these United States has become an overpaid, overstaffed, self-serving institution. It confiscates taxpayer funds to finance exorbitant and unconstitutionally determined salaries, pensions, and perks. Most members of Congress have become more accountable to the Washington establishment than to the people in their home districts. Both houses of Congress are all too often unresponsive and irresponsible, arrogantly placing themselves above the very laws they enact, and beyond the control of the citizens they have sworn to represent and serve.

We seek to abolish Congressional pensions.

It is time for the American people to renew effective supervision of their public servants, to restore right standards and to take back the government. Congress must once again be accountable to the people and obedient to the Constitution, repealing all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary.

Defense

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

We believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures.

Education

Because control over education is now being relegated to departments other than the Department of Education, we clarify that no federal agency, department, board, or other entity may exercise jurisdiction over any aspect of children's upbringing. Education, training, and discipline of children are properly placed in the domain of their parents.

We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home, private or religious. We oppose all legislation from any level of government that would interfere with or restrict that liberty. We support equitable tax relief for families whose children do not attend government schools.

So that parents need not defy the law by refusing to send their children to schools of which they disapprove, compulsory attendance laws should be repealed.

Election Reform

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other, more stringent criteria.

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Family

We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

Gun Control

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Immigration

We affirm the integrity of the international borders of these United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

Religious Freedom

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

State Sovereignty

The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, and health care, ad infinitum.

We call upon the states to reclaim their legitimate role in federal affairs and legislation (See Amendment 10 United States Constitution) and thus cause the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution and extract the federal government from such enterprises, whether or not they compete with private enterprise.

Welfare

Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of these United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens. Neither should taxpayers be indentured to subsidize welfare for persons who enter these United States illegally.

On the "Wasted Vote"

2008-10-15T11:39:00.000-07:00

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Politically Exhausted

2008-10-14T22:45:00.000-07:00

I am officially nearing exhaustion in hearing about this election. Don't get me wrong, I believe politics is important as it impacts Americans in a very real way. I remember when I was 18 I was eager to register and exercise my new right to vote and did so as soon as I was able. That year was when George Bush 41 was running for re-election against Bill Clinton. I rode my bike to my polling place and cast my 1st vote ever for none other than Ross Perot. I think I mainly made that choice based on the opinions of people close to me as I really had no idea what was going on in politics at that time.

My interest in politics didn't really peak until much later. Before I really started paying close attention to the issues and understanding where I stood in my political views, I was a registered Democrat (because my family are all Democrats) and I would base most of my political debate on popular talking points or whatever the MSM had to offer on the issues. I have always enjoyed a good exchange, call it a debate or an argument, I have always been "game" to get into it.

Once I really began to look more objectively at the issues, and also around the time when I became a Christian, it became obvious to me that I was better represented by the Republican Party. I was very zealous, if still not terribly well-informed, and went after those claiming to be Democrats with enthusiasm, thinking they must be fools for ascribing to a party that promotes such ignorant and irrational policies. For a good while I clung to the Republican Party and my conservative views with veracity. It defined me in a way, calling myself "Conservative" and the feeling that I had made the "right choice".

Another shift has happened since then. In the last few years as I have watched a Republican controlled Congress and Executive branch in action, in the few issues that are most important to me, there has been either no progress or backwards progress and, more and more, the Republican Party has represented my personal worldview in word only. My confidence in the GOP has eroded over the past few years as the line between Republican and Democrat have become more blurry. My disillusionment peaked in 2006, as I was utterly frustrated at the inability of either party to speak for me, and I voted for all 3rd party candidates in that election. I had broken away from the party line and chose each candidate based on their record and how closely their views matched my own. It was the 1st time I had refused to play "the game" of politics and voted my conscience, and I am glad I did it.

The conscience can be a terrible thing, especially when it is violated. This is something I learned in a very vivid way after voting to oust California Governor Grey Davis and replaced him with the utter disaster that is running California into the ground as we speak. I chose what was politically expedient over what I believed was right, and I have regretted it ever since. Every time the "Governator" does something idiotic I shake my head at him, and then at myself for helping make it possible.

The next time I cast my vote was in the recent primaries, in preparation for the 2008 General Election happening in just a few weeks. After reviewing the candidates, I cast my vote for Ron Paul on the Republican ticket. Men like Ron Paul, Alan Keyes and Chuck Baldwin are laughed at and disrespected by BOTH parties for having the "audacity" to even show up to run for office. These are men who intentionally go against the status quo because they hold personal principles and character above "winning". Alan Keyes was publicly disrespected by pretty much every other Republican candidate during the primaries, which hastened my disillusionment as I watched men of my party openly disrespecting a good and decent man who did not act in fear, but spoke from the heart about how far he believed this country has strayed from her roots. The Ron Paul's and Alan Keyes' of this country are Christians 1st and patriots 2nd. I think politicians may play a distant 3rd if I had to guess; but it is clear they have priorities like my own so as a matter of conscience I am obligated to support them, even if they cannot win. They represent the principles of a Constitutional form of government that we have long strayed from, and that I believe we need to return to.

This all may come off as a little idealistic to many, but what better way to be when choosing the person who will very soon be running the free world, and at such times as we find ourselves in now? Shouldn't we ask for excellence in the person who makes decisions and has influence that will profoundly affect our lives? The Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's of the world have dished out the "lesser of 2 evils" time after time, and where has that gotten us? It has led the GOP to put up a man like John McCain who, in the primaries, was scoffed at and ridiculed for the same maverick tendencies for which he is now being embraced and held out as the best the party has to offer? Despicable. I refuse to play the game this time around and further sear my conscience by voting for such a man whose only appeal, apparently, is that he is NOT Barrack Obama. I refuse to vote "against Obama" by voting for John McCain, as this is the same backwards logic conservatives ridiculed John Kerry supporters for when they vowed, "No more W" in 2004.

I am endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in the General Election. Chuck is a family man and Christian pastor who was supporting Ron Paul before Ron left the race. The Constitution Party is right on all of the issues that are important to me: abortion, immigration, liberty, marriage, the right to bear arms, small government and every other issue that I believe we should not compromise in protecting.

Call it a "wasted vote" if you like, but I believe there is no such thing as long as the person casting their vote can do so with a clear conscience.

Stand and Fight, or Lose

2008-10-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

I am confused by John McCain's behavior regarding this whole economic bailout fiasco. The $700 billion dollar package failed, and well it should have as it would have been a huge step towards socializing our financial system. America has prospered partly because we have a free market economy and I believe too much over sight by the government would undermine that. The financial companies took a gamble by making junk loans, partly because the Fed forced them via an affirmative action like policy which required a certain number of mid to low-income recipients on their books, and I think also due in part to the housing market bubble making them a bit too aggressive.

However we got here, whether you want to put all the blame on one institution, party, individual, etc, we need to do what is right going forward. To me, "right" is letting the market self-correct. This has already started to happen: one of the warnings we had a couple weeks ago was that banks would start to falter, and that would mean the beginning of "the end". Well, the first part of the scenario has indeed happened, as evidenced by Washington Mutual (speaking of junk loans) failing. How did the market react? J.P. Morgan Chase stepped in and purchased them, which should have zero impact to the customers (like me) of WAMU. All WAMU assets are now secured by Chase Bank and the FDIC, so all is well. So the market has so far adjusted for this, and I believe it will continue to do so as companies in trouble continue to get bought out by companies with the capital to do so. Consumers so far seem less affected by all of this activity in terms of their confidence in the market. Whether this is due to complacency or just blind trust in the market is debatable, I suppose.

I also believe John McCain trusts the free market, which is why I am befuddled by his statements of late that the bailout is the way to go. He put his campaign on "pause" and vowed to go to DC and do his part as Republican leadership to get a deal done. Good start, and the polls showed that Americans, the same ones who 2 to 1 are against shouldering the burden of failed financial institutions who used bad business practices, agreed and supported him. He then claimed "victory" before the actual vote tool place and looked inept as it did not pass as expected.

Legislators are now working on bailout II, and plan to vote again Thursday. Now is McCain's opportunity to side with the American people and conservative principles and work to pass the Republican's answer to this, which would mean loans and insurance to hurting companies that would bolster consumer confidence and still keep responsibility where it belongs. John McCain should be familiar with the notion of standing and fighting according to principle, given his military background and reputation as a "maverick".

I believe the alternative to this is to agree with the Democrats and Obama, which is basically to disagree with the American people, which could be the beginning of "the end" for the McCain campaign for President.

Charlie Gibson: Proving the MSM is On It's Way to Extinction

2008-09-14T08:20:00.000-07:00

I caught most of the ABC News September 11th interview of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin and was extremely annoyed at how disrespectful and condescending anchorman Charlie Gibson was toward her. He was talking to her like she was a naive, 14 year old girl who needed a little of his "wisdom". His questions were tough, which is understandable, but the interviewer did a terrible job of keeping his own opinion out of the discussion. He cut her off several times, continually tried to get her to admit that she was "terrified" at the prospect of being V.P. and not up to the challenge; while she is clearly confident in her abilities, but says she is "humbled" by it all. I don't know about you, but that is exactly the response I want from a person in her position: a willingness to pursue a challenge for the greater good, while understanding the heaviness of the responsibility.

The full transcript of the interview is linked below (courtesy of NewsBusters) and it shows how what you ultimately saw on television was edited not just for brevity, but to paint Sarah Palin in a particular light.

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

Here, Charlie rails on the notion that the Governor of Alaska is in over her head, and that it takes "hubris" for her to act with confidence under the circumstances. Now, "hubris" is one of those 50 cent words I don't use every day, but it implies not just confidence, but such confidence that acts in ignorance and ultimately leads to humiliation, whether intentional or not. Gibson is strongly implying she is unprepared, but too arrogant to know any better.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

It should be noted here that Gibson obviously doesn't have the grasp of the Bush doctrine that he thinks he does. Charles Krauthammer deals with this gaff by Gibson in a Washington Post article (link below). What I would like to ask Charles Gibson is, did it take "hubris" for you to ask a question such as this, given that your own understanding of the issue is apparently incorrect?

Palin's answer:

Note: Bolded text is what was omitted by ABC in the final televised interview.

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

What is of particular interest is the portion of this segment that ABC chose to leave on the cutting room floor. By removing Sarah's assertion that is the President's obligation, not just prerogative, to defend Americans, while leaving the more general statement that we have a right to defend ourselves, it paints Sarah Palin as some gun-toting war-monger.

The arrogance of Charlie Gibson is palpable. To presume to have a better grasp of the duties of public office than Sarah Palin when he has spent his life writing the news, while she has spent hers in public office making news and bringing real change to the city and state she presided over in an executive capacity.

I think ABC is showing their true colors, arrogantly assuming most people will never go beyond their skillfully edited OP/ED piece that could have been a bit of good reporting. Had it not been for the risk of highlighting Sarah Palin's integrity on important issues, the American people may have seen the whole interview.

Gibson has a similar sit-down with Obama earlier in the year, and here is how the questions asked of the two compare:

The following comment illustrates the difference between how Gibson interviewed Obama and Palin:

cedarford:A woman at a Hillary website (nom de plume - Nancy Kallitechnis) posted what she found reviewing Gibsons questions to Obama compared to the questions he later asked the VP nominee Palin:

The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Gibson, an experienced interviewer and anchorman, treats Obama like a golf buddy, but badgers Sarah Palin to death and spouts left wing opinionate drivel. How's that for balanced reporting?

Guess what MSM? The average person (like myself) is getting more informed by the day thanks to this whole "Internet" thing, so not only are you not the only game in town, but your absolute left-leaning bias is showing big time, and I sincerely hope it destroys you as people grow in their distaste of your approach to "reporting".

Hat Tip:
PAJAMAS MEDIA
NewsBusters

Full transcript of the interview(bolded text shows comments that were edited out):
mark LEVIN Show

Bush Doctrine:
Washington Post

McCain vs. Obama: Vive la Difference?

2008-09-07T21:02:00.000-07:00

It has been suggested to me more than once that there is not alot of real difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. If you think of McCain's liberal leanings, this is easily conceivable, but it occurred to me that the real telling would be in doing a direct comparison of their voting records while in the Senate. Man, talk about some serious, time consuming research! Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, someone else thought if it before me and already did the hard task of chasing down the data and presenting it. I believe the person credited with the research (bottom of article) may be an Obama supporter, but his presentation was pretty balanced.

These are organized issue by issue, and in no particular importance:

Immigration

2007 Immigration Act - McCain and Obama both voted for it (right before it failed).
A bill prohibiting illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status - McCain and Obama both voted against it.
Obama sponsored a bill that would raise the level of family sponsored immigrants from 226,000 to 567,000 - McCain voted against this.
The following one is just confusing. I guess I don't understand politics:

Amendment that declared English to be the common language of the U.S. - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
Amendment making English the national language of the U.S. - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
Amendment making English the unifying language - McCain and Obama voted "Yes"
Triple-layered fencing along the Southern U.S. border - Both voted "Yes"
Double-layered fencing - both voted "No".

The Constitution

Amendment against flag desecration - McCain: "Yes", Obama (and Hillary): "No"
Resolution criticizing moveob.org for bashing General Petraeus - McCain: "Yes", Obama: did not vote (interesting)
Senate pay raises - Both "No" (only 6 voted "Yes")
Amendment opposing criticism of the U.S. military - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
Bill granting Habeas Corpus rights to U.S. detainees - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
Same sex marriage amendment - both voted against this.

Katrina

Allow an amendment vote to increase government financial aid to Katrina victims by providing food, bankruptcy relief and tax help - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
Congressional commission to study what went wrong with Katrina - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"

Iraq

Congressional committee to study how contracts were to be handed out in Iraq and Afghanistan - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
Additional $50 billion to fund Iraq - both voted "Yes"

Appointments

Alito & Roberts - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
Gonzalez - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
Condoleeza Rice - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"

Economics

Bill limiting farm subsidies for married couples to $250,000 - cosponsored by McCain and Obama
Economic stimulus - McCain: "Yes", Obama: did not vote
Sunset of the estate tax - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
Increase debt limit to 8.97 trillion dollars - both voted against this
Extend pay as you go until 2011 - both voted "Yes"
Temporary crude oil profits tax - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"

Ethics

Ethics bill - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes" (although he wasn't a cosponsor of the bill he touts it as his most important achievements)

Environment

Drilling in ANWR - both voted "No"
Carbon and mercury limits - both voted "Yes"

Education

Pell Grant increase - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"

Veterans

$500 million to help vets deal with PSTD and substance abuse - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"

Free Trade

CAFTA - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
Free Trade agreement with Oman: both voted in support

Stem Cells

Embryonic stem cell research - both voted "Yes"

Synopsis:

They seem to agree on immigration, gay marriage, stem cells, and the environment, while differing on Supreme Court justices, taxes, Iraq, trade, and ethics.

As a strong proponent of Pro Life, I find McCain's soft stance on embryonic stem cell research particularly disconcerting, and I find it ironic that those who would consider McCain the "lesser of 2 evils" would do so partly based on Obama's very liberal stance on abortion. If respect for life is what moves you to be against abortion, there can be no reason for you to simultaneously support embryonic stem cell research. I suppose you could argue that their difference on appointing Supreme Court justices makes the Pro Life argument a mute point.

Add to that his voting record on protecting the institution of marriage and a historical soft stance on immigration, and I develop serious reservations about putting McCain at the helm even at the off chance it would usher in a Palin administration in 4 years. Add to my distaste that he is a certifiable "Global Warming Believer". The question to me is: can we afford 4 years of McCain, and more importantly, can I live with myself every day knowing I pulled the lever for him?

This coming from a Californian who is still regretful of putting the "Governator" in office; what an absolute disaster he has turned out to be.

Hat tip: Joe Rivett at 411mania.com.

Has McCain Changed His Tune, or Can We Still Call Him, "The Maverick"?

2008-09-04T12:06:00.000-07:00

Needless to say, Conservatives have been absolutely unified and indeed electrified by the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket. I watched her speech and was impressed by how real she is when speaking to the American people, and I think this is primarily her appeal. Add to that what seems like a genuine conservative streak, a willingness to challenge the "status-quo" and the novelty of being a female and you end up with someone who has turned the McCain campaign completely around.

This speaks to McCain's political savvy and his willingness to surprise us; before his V.P. pick was official, I am of the impression that many secretly wished he would choose Palin, but publicly predicted otherwise because they weren't sure he had it in him. The consensus now seems to be that McCain has cemented his status as a "Maverick" by his choice of V.P., and maybe that is true.

Let me start by saying my motive here is not to rain on the veritable "Love Fest" that characterizes the Republican party as of the last 7 days. Alot of long-time conservatives are saying they haven't seen the party this energized since the early 90's, and others are even reminded of the conservative revolution brought by Reagan. This is good for politics; to have people passionately involved in the process, and having discussions about why their candidate is better. I believe firmly that people being informed and invested in the political process can only result in good for the country. This is why our political system works as it does, because through dissent and debate, and sharing information (true information) the best candidate wins.

A month ago it was not clear to me which candidate would best represent me. I was, and still am, certain that Obama's "big government" socialist utopian vision for America was completely against my sensibilities as a believer in a constitutional form of government. The men who founded this Republic were wise and knew how to best strike a balance between governing a nation while protecting the liberties of those they governed, and I think that formula can still work today. That said, I was as depressed as anyone to have the choices we had for President.

Every time the word "Maverick" is used to describe to McCain I get a little nervous, as I am reminded of what made him a maverick to begin with. Through his years in the Senate, he earned the reputation as the Republican who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats to get legislation passed. Now, I don't share the same distaste for bi-partisanship as some, and under the circumstances, it is the only way conservatives in Washington can get things done. As long as it is ultimately good for the country, I don't care who authors legislation. But, this was the main gripe conservatives had about McCain when he pulled ahead as the Republican nominee, and he was painted as a "traitor" by many not only for working with Democrats but more specifically for legislation that was promoted by him that was decidedly unrepresentative of traditional conservative values.

While I am as enchanted as the next person by Sarah Palin, as a person who analyzes EVERYTHING (maybe too much, my wife can tell you), I have to ask the question: Has John McCain changed since the time, not long ago, when his base was begrudgingly vowing to "hold their noses" and pull the lever for the "not-quite-conservative" Republican candidate for President?

Sarah Palin's conservative values are evident in her record in public life and in what is apparent about her personal life, but I can't say the same thing about McCain.

My wife and I discuss politics often, and recently she asked the question, "People write speeches for politicians, and they always say what is necessary to get elected: How do we know what they are really about?" This is not just a good question, it is THE question. When Obama, the young Senator from Illinois, announced his intent to campaign for the Democratic Party nomination, the only way we could measure his ability to act as President was by looking at his record. And indeed the Right has constantly criticized the Democratic nominee on the grounds that his record was not only short, but what record there is doesn't amount to much that proves he is ready for the job. It is painfully obvious that Democrats have caught "Obama Fever" for the same reason they were behind Kerry; because they think Obama can win.

What has always separated conservatives and liberals is principle. When those on the left were rooting for Kerry because they didn't want another Bush term, we accused them of running a "negative campaign" and thought less of them because they had no real reason for supporting John Kerry except political expediency and fear of the alternative. I frowned and shook my head when I saw bumper stickers urging people to vote Kerry because "A Vote for Kerry is a Vote Against Bush". How pathetic.

If we are honest, fair, and genuinely desire the best representation, we are obligated to hold McCain to the same scrutiny as we hold his opponent to. So we are again forced to step back and go beyond the McCain of late and use his record to get a true measure of the man who desires to be our President. And, we have an ethical obligation not to be accused of the same acts we have condemned others for.

I am glad at least for the political stir Palin has caused and for the wind being knocked out of the Obama campaign, but for me, the jury is still out on whether the McCain/Palin ticket is the best representation of my values as a Christian conservative. Palin is an exciting choice for VP, but we need to bear in mind she is not running for President, McCain is.

Out of the Woodwork...

2008-09-02T14:41:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the morning the Sarah Palin announcement was made. Since then, I have been spending alot (some would say too much?) time traveling the blogosphere to gauge the reaction from both sides of the political aisle.

Conservatives have awakened from their McCain-induced slumber and have started getting involved in supporting the GOP candidate by giving to the campaign, buying yard signs, etc. I congratulate McCain and his team for their accomplishment and am glad folks are doing more than "holding their noses" this election year.

On the other hand, the wingnuts on the left have come out of the woodwork in direct opposition to McCain for his VP choice. As I read articles about Palin and the associated comments, I am overwhelmed by the volume of people who are passionately on either side of this issue.

The excitement of Republicans is pretty self-explanatory: they have some assurance that their traditional issues will get some representation now that Palin, proven pro-lifer and fiscal conservative, is on the ticket. And the GOP has a woman running who is capable of capturing as much media attention as she has, which is good for the election, especially in light of the way the MSM has sided on reporting on Obama developments, no matter how trivial. The numbers are in and Obama has gotten "special treatment" by the media, and this was probably the only way for the GOP to steal the limelight. There is more, but I will leave it at that.

Where it gets REALLY interesting, and to a degree a little puzzling (call me naive), is the hateful, panic-stricken response from those who support Obama (or post as "Conservative" while secretly supporting Obama, *wink*). The rhetoric ranges from commenting about how foolish McCain is for his choice to downright "Chicken Little-esque" statements about how the world will come to an end if McCain dies (touching they are suddenly so concerned for his well being) and Sarah Palin is at the helm.

Let's assume that the liberals are correct and that the Republican Party is a bunch of kool-aid drinking, lemmings-off-a-cliff, political morons who do not know what is best for this country.

My question to those so thoroughly against the McCain/Palin ticket is: Why are you trying to so hard to talk them into averting disaster? Why not let the logical end, which according to you is utter implosion, come naturally?

The answer is, they are threatened by the impending 4 years of Republican rule that Sarah Palin represents. Who can blame them. I mean, she respects life, liberty, and the individual pursuit of happiness (hey, that sounds familiar) that they despise so very much. The reaction we are seeing is normal when a party has been utterly complacent, resting on it's laurels arrogantly assuming they had the election in the bag, and are suddenly blind-sided by the likelihood that, once again, they will come up losers.

So Much for Obama's "Bounce"

2008-08-29T09:09:00.000-07:00

McCain and his people made an excellent choice in Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska if for no other reason than Obama's thunder has officially been stolen.

The "Bounce" Obama got from the DNC, which ended up being around 4% (less than stellar as the average is ~6%)?

The mantra of "Change" echoed ad nauseam for months and months?

Put the first female V.P. (which Obama had a chance at) in your "Change Pipe" and smoke it! And wave bye-bye to your "bounce".

At this point, it isn't formal yet, and I am waiting to her the radio broadcast but it is good to have some assurance that Obama will lose the Presidency in 2008.

Love Him or Hate Him, He's Still Got It...

2008-08-27T20:55:00.000-07:00

I read the speech to be delivered by President Bill Clinton at the DNC this evening, and I have to admit I was impressed. Whether you can stand him or not, you would be lying if you said he wasn't the master at delivery. He was clearly in his element, doing what he loved. Obama stopped by in an impromptu fashion to thank the Clintons and the Bidens for their support; I would say he owes former President Clinton BIG TIME for delivering the way he did.

And I am NOT a Clinton fan by any stretch...

Some speculate this is "The End" for the Clinton political machine; I wish I could believe that, but the cautious part of me knows that these people will keep coming back like Jason Voorhees.

Why Marriage is Important and Should NOT Be Tinkered With

2008-07-09T21:10:00.000-07:00

I have been spending alot of time on various websites studying and debating issues that are near and dear to my heart such as protecting traditional marriage and the plausibility of the theory of climate change. The following is a response I wrote to a well-meaning advocate of same-sex marriage over at Pajamas Mediawho couldn't fathom what all the fuss was about or what harm 2 people who love each other getting married could have on anyone else. It went on a bit longer than I anticipated, but it describes well my heart for marriage and children:

For centuries, the institution of marriage, whether the law recognized it or not, has been between one man and one woman for the primary purpose of bearing children. Why is this good? Because if people weren’t getting hitched and having kids, we wouldn’t be here. It’s a matter of survival.

Fact: Children grow up healthier and more balanced when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are in a committed relationship (marriage).

I am describing the ideal situation for the main benefactor of marriage: children. They are the next generation. If we screw them up, our society is also screwed.

The 60’s (the “me” era, sexual revolution, feminism, Eastern religion…) ushered in a whole new concept of relationships that are very sexualized, and sex has become more about personal gratification than procreating. When people get counseled in preparation for marriage, they are invariably told to “plan” their families; don’t have kids right away, take a vacation, see the world before you get “weighted down” with offspring. The parenting philosophy of today is centered on the parents; making sure they get lots of “me” time and rest, because after all, mommies and daddies are better mommies and daddies when the are in a good mood and aren’t all worn out from parenting, right?

My point is, marriage is ultimately about children, and children have become an after-thought, something to do when the “real fun” is over. This also applies to same sex marriage and what I described as the ideal environment in which to raise children. Let's say 2 committed, in love, homosexual men decide they want to get married and make a family. It’s the American dream, right? So it sounds fair, just let them do it. To accomplish this, we loosen up the definition of marriage a little, what’s the harm? Ted and Steve buy a house together, make out their wills and share a common name as a sign of their love and commitment.

The next logical step is to have children… but here we have an obvious problem, don’t we? The newlyweds have no choice but to adopt, so they do. Or maybe they find a woman big-hearted enough to be artificially inseminated with either of their sperm and carry the baby to term. Voila! Ted and Steve are a white picket fence and a dog away from the complete American dream! And why shouldn’t they have all this?

1. Marriage isn’t recognized and supported by the state so you and I can “pronounce our undying love”. This is drivel we inherited from the generation of “me”, who are focused less on serving their fellow man than fulfilling their own personal desires.

2. The children that will result from either being adopted and raised by Ted and Steve, or the surrogate situation I described will not be raised in the “ideal”, so why do it? Ted and Steve have very compelling reasons for wanting children. They are driven by their desire to paint the perfect family picture and prove that “family” can mean more than it has traditionally. They want to make a powerful political statement about their community. The problem with these motives, regardless of how noble they may sound is how self-centered they are; parenthood should be child-centered, not parent-centered. If you want kids for any other reason than to serve them, then you are starting off on the wrong foot and shouldn’t bother.

This same thing applies to single people wanting children, unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to marry, or any other situation you can dream up that ISN’T 2 biological, opposite sex people.

The real reason marriage is so good for America is that it creates and fosters the next generation so in 20 years there IS an America.

We should remember that God originally defined marriage, and He loves it dearly. Changing it's definition is no small thing and the impact will not be a good one should it happen.

The Unreported Good News in Iraq

2008-06-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

Read this article today at Commentary Magazine by way of Instapundit. The glaring lack of exposure of the significant positive developments in Iraq by our MSM is a perfect example of their obvious left-leaning political bias. They are happy to report deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but when the Surge works and the most violent regions of Iraq are stabilizing? Headlines are chalk full of stories about Don Imus, real estate, etc...

Personally, I am interested in strategic news that actually impacts my family and my country, and a stable Iraq that is no longer a haven for terrorists fit that.

Here are some key excerpts from the article. It is worth reading in it's entirety:

[t]he US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday . . . Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad. Anbar province in western Iraq, the country’s largest, was the epicentre of a brutal Sunni Arab-led fight against the US military after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. In the early years of the insurgency, US forces fought raging battles in the province, especially in the capital Ramadi and the nearby city of Fallujah.

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years.

Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

It goes on and on, but the picture is clear. The left is not only not concerned about Iraq, they are petrified of success because it would validate a Bush policy that they have disagreed with from the start, and put the Democratic party in a bad light in an election year.

Is the Smart Money on Hillary as McCain's VP?

2008-06-08T13:21:00.001-07:00

While the prospect of having Hillary anywhere near the White House frightens me to no end, would it be a good choice for John McCain to ask her to run alongside him as his V.P.? Understand that I am only speaking in terms of political expediency here; if it were up to me, neither of them would be running the free world. But reality is what it is, and this election year is not ideal for a principled Christian conservative like me. Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily makes a compelling argument here.

If you consider what Hillary accomplished in the popular vote, and just how divided Democratic voters apparently are over Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it makes sense for McCain to go after those people who deep down really want to vote for Hillary. Wouldn't a McCain/Hillary ticket guarantee the bigger states won by her, including California and New York?

Also consider just how alike all 3 of them are in terms of legislative record:

They aren't that far apart politically. In fact, McCain, Obama and Hillary have co-sponsored 86 pieces of legislation in the U.S. Senate since 2005. They agree on the border. They agree on amnesty. They agree on global warming. They agree on more than they disagree.

Actually, this makes pairing Hillary with either Obama or McCain somewhat logical, does it not? Maybe Hillary really is unstoppable politically.

Of course, McCain making Hillary his running mate would go nowhere in winning over the conservative base. But hasn't he already proven, by virtue of the fact that he got the GOP nomination, that he really doesn't need the far right to win the White House?

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide

2008-06-04T12:45:00.000-07:00

This was welcome news from ProtectMarriage.com.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.'"

This initiative actually started before 4 California Supreme Court justices decided to speak for special interests and legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws as they are appointed to do.

Californians have already made their will known in 2000 when they voted 61% to keep marriage defined as "between one man and one woman", and they have not changed their minds, apparently.

“'The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,' said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. 'We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election...'"

By amending the State Constitution, and I am confident this initiative will pass, we will go a long way to protect this institution that is so utterly important to the survival of our society. This is not a trivial thing at all; Redefining marriage has been tried before in other countries with negative results.

It is also naive to think that this amendment would mean the end of this battle, as those who wish to define marriage for themselves and their personal interests will not stop here. The special interests who want to destroy marriage have proven themselves to be powerful and influential and they will not rest. Nor should those of us in this country who love marriage and want to keep it as it is.

Remember, if you live in a state other then California and are concerned about this issue, stay alert and be informed about this as it is only a matter of time before a similar decision goes before YOUR state.

McCain Welcomes Obama With Fresh Criticism

2008-06-03T20:46:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama claimed the nomination of his party this evening, and he did it with his usual flair. No doubt the man is eloquent and able to whip any crowd into a frenzy, but I still have NO EARTHLY IDEA what he would do as President, besides raise our taxes and "do lunch" with the likes of Ahmadinejad.

What was the response of the "Presumptive Nominee" to the GOP, John McCain?

He went on the attack immediately, which is exactly what he needs to do to compensate for the lack of enthusiasm conservatives have for his campaign. It would be foolish of McCain to think he can out speak his opponent; he must go after Obama's record (what there is of it) and anything in Barack's past that can undermine the confidence people have in him to lead on important issues like the war in Iraq.

A couple excerpts from McCain's response to the Illinois Senator clinching the nomination:

"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,"

McCain has already set the direction of the debate to Iraq, and Obama's intention to pull troops out immediately if elected. He simultaneously highlights the fact that HE has actually been on the ground there and spoken to those who have the best view of what is happening, the troops; while pointsing out how Obama hasn't even set foot in Iraq. McCain's war record is already well known so there really is no comparison between the 2 candidates on this issue, unless you are a big fan of the "Cut and Run" strategerie...

"They've seen me put our country before any president _ before any party _ before any special interest _ before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

McCain has embraced his own "imperfections" as a Senator and a Presidential candidate, which may just muzzle those who were planning on pointing out just how imperfect his voting record has been as Senator as seen through the eyes of staunch conservatives. I believe this to be a good move, not to mention his lack of apology for being historically bi-partisan. This paints him as the guy you may not agree with on every issue, but at the end of the day, you can trust him and he sticks to his guns. It also impresses independents.

Good start for McCain by coming out strong and not letting Obama catch his breathe before the next fight begins. The question is, can he beat Obama in the fall, after being out spent and out-gunned in the charisma department?

Michael Yon

2008-05-28T13:41:00.000-07:00

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.

McCain Flopping On Gay Marriage?

2008-05-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

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.

The "Apathetic Party" Could Help Destroy Marriage

2008-05-16T10:27:00.000-07:00

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!

California Supreme Court Forces Homosexual Marriage on California

2008-05-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Will It Be Huckabee for V.P.?

2008-05-14T09:38:00.001-07:00

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...

The Bible, Politics, and Barbecue

2008-05-10T20:48:00.000-07:00

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.

GOP Needs to Use Foresight to Win in November

2008-05-07T12:32:00.000-07:00

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.

McCain Presidency Would See No Change in Immigration Policies

2008-05-06T13:08:00.001-07:00

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.

Hillary is Looking Out for #1

2008-04-29T09:48:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of Dick Morris' commentary. I think his years in politics, particularly his involvement in the "Clinton Political Machine", makes him very savvy and I find that he is on point alot of the time. In this article, he does a good job explaining why it is that Hillary continues to run in spite of the numbers speaking so loudly against the possibility of her getting the nomination.

You could call it dogged determination, and I think that is accurate to a degree, but in light of how cunning we know her and her husband to be you have to consider an ulterior motive. Here is a key quote from the article:

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin?

Her performance against Obama is exactly what I had hoped for, but I have also been operating under the assumption that if she lost really badly in her bid for the Democratic nomination she would give up any hope for the presidency and find contentment in being the Senator from New York. Sigh... could I have been more naive?

I absolutely believe that she understands that, aside from pulling a good number of Super Delegates to her side, she is toast. She also knows that this is not only unlikely, but it wouldn't win her alot of favor with her base in November. So I totally agree with Morris that she is purposely undermining Obama's bid in November because she would rather go against McCain in 2012 than Obama.

I couldn't care less if the Democratic party implodes on itself; I think a shake up might do both parties some good and might even scare them out of their apparent complacency, but hopefully the Dems will see that Hillary's tenacity has alot less to do with party loyalty and a sincere desire to represent the people than a motive of seeking power and self promotion. If she really cared about the country and her party, she would bow out gracefully and throw her support behind the likely nominee.

NOT likely though...

Global Warming or Cooling? Either Way, It's OUR Fault!

2008-04-21T14:25:00.001-07:00

Good article here which echos my thoughts on the insanity that is "Climate Change".

The author points out how the term has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since statistics recently uncovered the fact that some parts of the earth are actually cooling.

I would never make the point that we don't need to be good stewards and not use resources wisely, nor would I disagree with the mountain of evidence proving the earth is changing temperature. Where they lose me is their lack of proof that humans are actually causing that temperature fluctuation.

Evangelical Christians are also losing their minds over this issue based on the Biblical teachiing of stewardship. Me thinks they take it to far, and the conservative leadership refusing to take a stance against it doesn't help matters. I call your attention to the "Green" commercials being aired featuring the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich as well as Pat Roberts and Al Sharpton "teaming up" to send the message that the Climate Change farce is a non-partisan issue.

Pretty pathetic, "We never agree an ANYTHING, but we can agree on THIS."

The Pope is a Globalist

2008-04-20T12:01:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly, the Pope has come out against undermining the United Nations. He uses words that should scare those who value our national sovereignty, like, "human family", "international community", etc.

He also speaks of minorities who choose to act without a consensus, jeopardizing the "necessary unilateral consensus" he believes is necessary to cure the world's ills. Of course, the "minority" is the U.S., and the "act" is the war in Iraq.

The liberal-minded pontiff is of the opinion that "every diplomatic avenue" be explored and that nations should give attention to "even the faintest sign of dialogue" before choosing to act.

In other words, be spineless and let them play us. Try to imagine a world where we actually respectfully listen to the demands of terrorist nations and give careful thought before acting.

I don't think so.

She's Having a Baby

2008-04-04T14:49:00.000-07:00

I have been watching politics alot lately (albeit less than a month ago) and really don't have anything to say on the subject because recent events haven't been that noteworthy...

I did think it would be worth taking a few minutes to make a clarification regarding the Oregon woman who recently became pregnant. I know, this in and of itself doesn't sound very interesting. But everyone is "shocked" and intrigued because it so happens the woman looks like a man for all intents and purposes, due to therapy to change her gender.

Thomas Beattie has undergone therapy to change her gender so that she and her lesbian lover could get married in Hawaii, a state that does not sanction same-sex marriage (now THAT'S what I call a loophole). It is also noted that Thomas (that is her legal name, so I will use it, sigh...) went without her therapy once the couple decided to have a child so that she could ovulate again. She decided to keep her uterus because she believes it is neither a man's or woman's desire to have children, but a "human desire". Speaking for myself, I love kids to pieces but I have seen the birth of both of my children and no part of me has since thought, "I would LOVE to try that just once!"

I believe it is innate in a WOMAN to have the desire to bear children. This can easily be demonstrated by my wife's burning desire to have more kids, despite the fact that both of our children came into the world not without some difficulty on her part. While any negative events around her pregnancy are burned permanently on my memory, she seems to have a decidedly more selective recollection of those events.

So, two things about Thomas present no surprise to me at all:

1. She wants to have children.
2, She is able to become pregnant and take a child to term.

Why? Because SHE IS A FEMALE, PEOPLE!!

Now, the hyper-politically correct who read this will no doubt have a problem with me not being "diverse" enough in my thinking or violating the rights of this person for, "just wanting to be who they are darn it!" So if a person who happens to be born a certain gender decides they are the opposite gender, rather than referring them to a good counselor, we "respect" their decision and try our best to "support" their transition.

Alot of sarcasm here, but to be serious, I believe it is not a small thing to blur the lines between genders. In fact, I believe it is downright dangerous. Find a society that tried it and survived. It doesn't make us "tolerant" or "progressive" to accept the lie that there is no difference between men and women, it makes us fools.

It is ironic that men and women are delighted by the apparent differences between genders, and agree that it is exactly those differences that help us to complement one another in a relationship, while at the same time are not only unwilling to speak against such a twisted situation as the woman in Oregon has placed herself and her child in, but sanction it; all in the name of letting bygones be bygones, tolerance, diversity, etc. These words, which should be meaningful and good, now cause me to bury my face in my hands to protect against what comes next.

What is hilarious is articles like this that consistently refer to "Thomas" as "he/him". So sadly (but not surprisingly) the media has bought the story hook line and sinker that, while Thomas was born a woman, she is now a "he" and not only is to be treated as such but we should all be amazed at the "man" who is now with child! In case you weren't positive that Oprah was a complete loon, she had Thomas on her show and is quoted as saying the situation was, "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody". Excuse me "The Oprah" but, as adept as I may be at self-delusion from time to time, Thomas Beattie isn't allowed to define my thinking on any subject, including what it means to be "diverse" or "tolerant". Nor are you. I believe diversity that occurs naturally in society, such as cultural and racial, is great and the world would be alot less interesting without it and learning to accept others with cultural differences is a healthy thing.

In the end, Thomas Beattie and the woman who decided to marry her are emotionally broken people who need compassion and mercy. This does not mean everything they do is "okay"; when did everyone become 3 year old children and since when has society decided to become the enabling grand-parent who is afraid to refuse them anything?

It is frightening how morally relativistic we have become as a society, and I dare say it will not be without it's consequences. Nothing is.

The "Lesser of Two Evils" is a Greater Sin

2007-12-13T13:27:00.000-08:00

I watched the Iowa GOP debate last night on DVR and was not impressed by any of the candidates who, according to polls, have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination.

After the debate was over, a reporter spoke to a focus group of folks from Iowa who were also responsible for the graph which appeared on the right of the screen throughout most of the debate. The graph was supposed to show, by political "leaning" (in this case "Conservative" vs. "Moderate"), which candidate garnered the most support throughout the debate. When asked, by show of hands, who liked Mitt Romney, 80% of hands went up. When an individual was asked to give a reason why they were impressed with Romney, his response was basically that he "seemed confident" and "presidential".

This was a bit of a surprise for me as I have always seen Romney as the least confident in his answers and he ALWAYS has to respond to other candidates when addressed, even if it is fun.

Example:

When asked a question about taxes, Thompson initially responds that his goal is to be like Romney so he doesn't have to worry about paying taxes. Pretty cute answer, and this is what we know Fred for: being likable and charming above all else. Romney could have left it at that, but felt compelled to respond with something to the effect, "No, I want to be like YOU (Thompson)!" He does this consistently, and I believe unnecessarily. To me, that makes him out to be a little insecure, definitely not confident. He has generally seemed to me to be in a "reactive" mode when it comes to addressing comments made by other candidates. Giving a speech about "Faith" after the media covered Huckabee's comment about the possibility that the Mormon church teaches that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers is a good example. He has to be transparent and have such a degree of integrity that shots like that aren't even taken seriously. That would be "presidential" in my book.

Regarding the implication that Romney, "Seeming presidential" makes him a candidate worth voting for scares me because it is telling me that "John Q Voter" is looking for the man that can look the part more than a person of principle and character (can you say Manchurian Candidate with me?).

There is really no excuse for anyone who intends to cast their vote to not be informed about a candidate aside from what they see during these debates, or what is presented by the media. The availability of information at this point makes it so any person who takes politics seriously and understands the strategic effect on this country and the world can be equipped with the information they need to make an informed and intelligent choice for who they want to represent them as President.

What it really comes down to for me is not how a person comes across on television, although maybe there is something to be said about impressions when dealing diplomatically with the world, but what a person is made of. Are we really going to get to what these men are made of by watching them in this forum? I don't think so. I think if they had more opportunity to go after one another, we would see more of what they are really made of. You know the saying, "You don't know what kind of tea you have until you put it in hot water." Unfortunately, last night's "debate" was less that and more of a question and answer forum. Boring.

I believe the only real way to know what a candidate will do once in office is to look at his life, and if they have been in politics to any degree, their voting record. What they have done throughout their political career by their day to day actions in office will give you a better sense for what kind of leader they will be, regardless of what they are spewing from the podium. It is not highly likely that someone who consistently voted for open borders, or to support the redefinition of marriage throughout their career is suddenly going to turn on a dime now that the presidency is looming.

In all, I would say that the line between Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, have blurred quite a bit; and the GOP candidates reflect that. Predictably, they will appear very conservative while trying to win the Republican nomination, but when someone does succeed and they go against the Democratic nominee, they will suddenly be somewhere in the middle because they know they have to appeal to both the right and the left. This is just disingenuous and it's what makes politics so hard for me to swallow.

So what it comes down to (apparently) is, "Who makes the best politician?" Or the more pathetic, "Who has the best chance of beating Hillary?"

This is an abomination to me as a person who tries to live by principle and keep my conscience clear. Let me give a good example of when I made a decision based on what was politically expedient rather than my conscience, and how it subsequently backfired:

I voted for Arnold as Governor of California both because I thought he was a fiscal conservative, which California desperately needed (and still needs) and I reasoned he had the name recognition to garner enough votes to win. The result is not only has he become just another politician, in spite of his promise that he was just a regular guy and would therefore be more objective and not be influenced by special interests, but socially he is an absolute nightmare! Most recently, signing SB 777, a pro-homosexual agenda propaganda bill that ensures every child in public school will be indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle.

I have had to live with the decision to put that man in office ever since, and have therefore determined I will never vote on anything but conscience from now on.

Rudolph Guiliani is the front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination, not because he is ideal or even a true conservative, but because he has the name recognition and appeal to beat Hillary. Let's have a look at some issues that are generally important to conservatives, and where Rudy stands on them:

Abortion: makes no apology for believing abortion should be legal and publicly funded, but manages to stay in the middle by stating repeatedly that he encouraged adoption as an alternative and cut the number of abortions in New York while presiding as Mayor.

Gun Control: Once again, does not apologize for pushing stricter gun control laws and even suggests it made New York safer as a result.

Embryonic Stem Cell research: All for it.

Redefinition of Marriage: Has historically, in word and deed, supported the "right" of gays and lesbians to be legally married, but more recently taken a somewhat firmer stance on the issue, suggesting the existing civil union laws are sufficient for this purpose.

But, all of that being said, he has been deemed by most Republican voters (notice I didn't say Conservative) as the "lesser of two evils" because if we don't vote someone in who can beat Clinton we put the country in danger of being led by her. So we harden our hearts against the fact that Guiliani is a card carrying liberal in conservative clothing, pull the handle in his favor, and hope for the best? This is a bleak outlook in my opinion and something my conscience cannot bear.

In the end I will be forced by my conscience to vote for a candidate who probably has zero chance of actually getting nominated, much less win the presidency. But, I can live with that.

My Perspective On G.W.

2007-07-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

I have been perusing the blogs as is my usual habit, at least a few times a week, and noticed a good number of conservative bloggers making a defense of President Bush. Most assert that, in spite of his failures and what the polls are showing, he will be seen as a successful President by history. I agree that the President has made some key decisions that have absolutely had, and will continue to have, a positive effect for years to come.

Most notably, the tax cuts. Conservatives like myself who cast their vote for George Bush (both terms) expected this, and were delighted when he stuck to his guns despite the nay-sayers who predicted it would be a disaster economically. Indeed, those who doubted him then must eat their words now as the economy continues to flourish.

I am not a huge fan of social anything but as far as I can tell, the Prescription Medicare legislation seems to be doing what was intended. Kudos to the President for once again doing the unpopular thing and coming out on top.

This article describes well exactly what I am talking about and I will admit I needed to read it and be reminded that by and large, the legacy of this current administration will be a positive one once the dust has settled and people regain their objectivity a bit. (I got the link to the article from LMC).

Some folks who are turning their backs on President Bush do so because they believe Iraq is a failure and that the President is just being "stubborn" because he doesn't want to admit defeat. There are of course those who think Iraq was planned long ago and that all the talk about WMD's, Al Queda, etc. was just posturing to get the American people on board. I don't buy the "Bush Lied" scenario, and I number that with the "fruit cake conspiracy" lot. Maybe it is just a matter of opinion and I don't have enough information to make that call, but take it for what it's worth, just please, please, DO NOT ask me, "Then where ARE the WMD's?!" because I have NO IDEA! If that is all you have to say after 8 years, to say your view of the world is myopic is an understatement.

I confess that as of late I have been not so happy with the current administration and have lobbed some negative remarks at G.W., and I will not apologize for that because those comments were not made lightly. I didn't expect George Bush to fail me at any point, I only expected good things from him. I still remember my excitement when he was made President back in 2000, the Clinton era was finally over! The overwhelming mandate that ushered in his second term brought with it, for me, a huge sigh of relief because I thought 4 more years of George Bush as Prez would do the country alot of good, not to mention not realizing my greatest fear of having John Kerry as leader of the free world. I assumed that in his second term, with no pressure of securing a re-election looming, G.W. could really unleash and do some really great, if not popular, things. After all, isn't that what most second term Presidents do? Over all, I am of the opinion that his second term has been a bit lackluster compared to the first, though maybe I just expect too much.

I am not sure what to make of Iraq at this point. I read articles that say we can't even get the government there to hold up their end of the deal (they would rather take a vacation?), and are even opposing us to some extent. I even read that they are reassuring that as soon as we leave, they will be fine without us. Part of me knows that if we just pull out, the void left would be too great to fill and Iraq could be worse off than before, if history serves. The other part of me is thinking, "If the government we are supporting is reluctant to have us there, what on earth are we dying over there for?"

Needless to say, a confusing picture, but anyone should agree that success in Iraq would do alot to change the face of that part of the world, and may even spur more people to put away their fear and pursue free governments in their own countries.

In my next post (and it should appear less than 3 months from now...) I will share specifically why I am disillusioned with G.W. these days, and why his mistakes could outweigh his accomplishments in the "big picture".

Transparent Rudy

2007-06-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

This takes the cake. Giuliani apparently is a big fan of Ronald Reagan and even models himself after the beloved Republican President. This was said by Rudy at a political rally recently, according to Newsmax:

"What we’re lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan,”

Couldn't agree more, but then he says,

"As far as the things that developed my ideas and thinking, which developed as a much younger man, it was Ronald Reagan.”

Of course you did! I should have guessed by your ultra-conservative stance on issues like abortion, gun control and embryonic stem-cell research! Sheesh, could this guy be posturing for the Conservative votes he will need to get the nomination?

Then he nicely "rides the fence" by issuing this statement shortly after:

"I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly. He put us on offense against terrorism. I will always admire him for that.”

So, he loves and admires Reagan, loves what President Bush has done with respect to terrorism, but overall disapproves of Bush's leadership style.

Some thought Rudy would be a bit clumsy at the political game, but as it turns out he (or his speech writer) is playing very while by staying right in the middle.

One quick note though Rudy, no one with half a brain is buying you as a conservative, that dog will not hunt.

Conservative Bloggers, Unite!

2007-06-09T14:24:00.000-07:00

According to this Newsmax article, Fred Thompson is neck and neck with McCain in the polls with 17% support.

Thanks to Conservatives too afraid to do what is right, Rudy has 27%.

The North American Union Still Looms...

2007-04-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

I have written about this in the past as I believe this particular issue to be of the utmost importance, even compared to coverage of Pelosi's foray into foreign policy relations or Don Imus being raked over the coals by Al "Why do we keep giving this guy press?" Sharpton.

The fact is, our sovereignty as a country is being destroyed right under our noses without our knowledge or consent.

Read this article in Worldnetdaily for details. Here are a few key excerpts:

Many SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Read the linked document which details how the bordes between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should dissappear to allow goods and services to easily pass from one country to the next. Does this sound like a good idea, or are you as concerned as I am that our country is losing her identity?

In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, is quoted as saying:

"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class."

Here are some significant developments (as of middle of 2006, this is an old article) that reinforce the fact that progress is being made to move this country in this direction:

Last month, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, on June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council.

Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."

The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.

In light of this hidden agenda, suddenly our President's inability, or at least unwillingness to tighten security at our borders and stem the tide of illegal immigrants make perfect sense as it fits perfectly with his father's dream of a One World Government.

(U.S. Commerce Secretary) Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.

This kind of thing must not make "good news" because the MSM refuses to cover it, in spite of the strategic consequences these changes represent to our country.

More interesting reads related to this subject:

NASCO (International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor)
Council on Foreign Relations
North American Free Trade Agreement
Debut of the "Amero"

Shocking News!

2007-03-28T09:37:00.000-07:00

Women's group plans to endorse Clinton

Can't say I am suprised at all by this development. What scares me (besides Hillary herself) is that anyone would vote for her simply for the novelty of having a female President. This isn't only limited to women either; I have had conversations with many a man who thought it would be "cool" to have a woman running the country not to mention what a boost it would be to women's rights movements.

The simplest analogy I use to get them to thinking about the haphazard way they are making this important decision is this:

Harken back to the Lewinsky scandal (I know, I know, bear with me). Remember when Hillary claimed she knew nothing of it until just before the story broke. This can mean only two things:

1. She was lying, as what woman would not know her man was stepping out. This goes to her lack of integrity and a character flaw that she is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, no matter who she has to run over along the way (just like her hubby).

2. She was telling the truth, in which case she is just not smart and incapable of making decisions that affect the whole globe.

To me, that alone makes her questionable and it has made more than one person reconsider their decision.

Jesus, come back!

2007-03-27T21:17:00.000-07:00

Today I got an email through Townhall.com from Guiliani asking me to join his team to help him become the next leader of the free world.

I shudder to think of this guy running our country. This coupled with the even slim possibility of Hillary getting the Democratic nomination makes me yearn for the return of the Lord!

There isn't one candidate on either side of the aisle that I can get behind, and I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils"; my conscience simply wll not allow it.

Just a Quick Pause to Say Hello...

2007-03-27T08:59:00.000-07:00

Wow, I last posted way back in January. No doubt some have assumed my blogging days are over and you would never see me again. The truth is, I have been lurking, reading your thoughts, dissecting your debates and trying to keep up with current events that I believe are important to our future.

Mrs.Bullfrog, the Tadpoles and I have been very busy as we decided around the first of the year that we wanted to move into a bigger place. Our 2 bedroom was getting smaller as the kids get bigger (that's what happens when you keep feedin' 'em!). So we started the search assuming we would stay in the same neighborhood, but the rents in San Diego even in the 2 years we were staying in our old place really ballooned to the point where you don't get nearly the square footage for the money as other areas. So we decided to move North a bit farther, the biggest impact being to my commute as I am now driving 90 miles every day instead of 12 (ouch!). Fortunately, I am carpooling which makes it alot easier and mama and the little ones are happy with the new diggs. We got twice the square footage in a much newer home for just a few hundred dollars. We will rent this place for a year or so and consider buying in this neighborhood if we find it is to our liking (so far, so good).

So, I am around and look forward to having time to once again commune with you all, but for now home and work are keeping me very busy. In a couple weeks things should slow down at work and I can get time in the evenings to publish some of my thoughts.

Thanks to Little Miss Chatterbox and Cynthia for stopping by with good wishes, I miss you all too.

Liberty Without a Creator

2007-01-02T09:13:00.000-08:00

Americans love freedom and liberty. We hold it dear and we protect it literally with our very lives. But what exactly is liberty? I am a big Webster fan (not the little cute actor, the dictionary guy), especially when it comes to defining words for which we have long taken the meaning for granted. Here is how Webster defines liberty:

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
synonym see FREEDOM
- at liberty
1 : FREE
2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED

Probably none of these definitions are a big suprise to anyone. I think #1 and #2 are specifically relevant to personal freedoms that we like to enjoy so I will focus on these. Also note that liberty and freedom are basically synonymous.

Definition 1a states, "the power to do as one pleases". Upon reading this, I instantly think of things that I certainly DO NOT want people doing (whether it "pleases" them or not), like selling dangerous narcotics, preying on children sexually, etc. It is probably safe to assume then that liberty does not mean doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Anyone who believes in absolute freedom of this kind I am guessing has never been assaulted or had their goods stolen. At best they are not being realistic, at worst they are of the type that wishes to commit these acts without restraint.

Using this argument, I am persuaded that, at least for the purposes of this discussion, definition #1 should be discarded and we should focus on #2:

2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits

So now freedom and liberty is "granted" and we are given "permission" to be free. This will offend some who believe we are absolute free agents, freely roaming the earth doing what "pleases us". The problem with that is, when your enjoyment of what pleases you violates the freedom of another, it is not freedom anymore. I would say it is immorality.

I will offer that without morality, there can be no liberty because without a moral code or "specified limits", freedom ceases to be free. Here are two quotes that nicely sum up this thought:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?" - George Washington

The question then becomes, who decides for me what is permissible? Who grants me certain rights? Who says what is moral?

Some would say it is the role of government to grant rights to people and decide how those rights should be used, but I disagree. I believe it is the role of government to protect my liberties or rights from being encroached upon. I think the founders of this country would agree:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence

This quote hits on exactly what I am getting at with this post: that the natural liberties we have are a gift from our Creator and that it is the job of government to preserve them by restraining those who would like to violate them. This is done primarily by enacting a moral code or system of laws. If this is insufficient to deter some, then punishment becomes necessary to further deter and/or restrain the violator.

So I will summarize by stating that without a Creator, there can be no real freedom; and where one desires to protect liberty, a moral code must be established.

"Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn

2006-12-19T11:36:00.000-08:00

I am working on a post titled, "Liberty without a Creator", until that is published I thought this article from the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Page was pretty interesting. It raises intriguing questions about Global Warming and the scientific community.

Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent a letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson requesting that he cease and desist in his company’s support of scientists who are skeptical about the global change theory, which basically says mankind exacerbates the Global Warming problem by our consumption.

Here are some key excerpts from the letter:

It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the "deniers."

Since when was it "bad" to challenge even long held and well supported scientific theory (which I am not convinced Global Warming is, yeah, I said it)? Isn't it actually a good thing to put a theory to the test against facts, and now that we are at it, is that not how a theory goes from being a theory to being accepted as fact?

...that ExxonMobil "come clean" about its past denial activities, and that the corporation take positive steps by a date certain toward a new and more responsible corporate citizenship.

That is an almost Gestapo-like statement in my opinion, "Confess your sins and be cleansed!

A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone.

Would anyone really have a problem with Exxon for doing this? To me it only lends objectivity to the whole issue and I commend them for their courage in approaching such a controversial debate from the dissenting side.

I will stop there and I think I have covered the message the letter was meant convey.

While one could argue that Exxon is only interested in seeing consumers filling up there SUVs without fear of damaging the planet, I though at least their angle raised some interesting questions.

1. Why are Senators, specifically Senators who profit from the sale of oil, so interested in seeing this debate end?

2. Does their personal interest in oil sales lend any credibility to their position as you would think they would prefer Americans be "deniers" in this particular debate?

3. Is it really honest to say that this debate is officially over and that we should no longer even question Global Warming and the human factor?

4. Does it take credibility away from scientists who would prefer that no dissenting debate be allowed?

5. Is it more scientific to assume something is wrong and find evidence to the contrary, or to assume it is correct and look for supporting empirical evidence?

Can You Say, "Amnesty"?

2006-11-16T05:43:00.000-08:00

President Bush is appointing Florida Senator Mel Martinez as the next Republican National Committee Chair. Article here

Why is this significant?

It is significant because,

Martinez is a leading advocate of a Bush-style solution to the nation's immigration problems.

In fact, Martinez led the battle for amnesty in the U.S. Senate.

So, if Bush can't win amnesty with a Republican controlled Congress, he intends to try again with the Democrats, with the help of his new champion.

This in spite of the fact that most of his base hates the idea of amnesty. Despicable.

Better TV for All?

2006-11-15T11:18:00.000-08:00

It is definitely time for a rant. I just got off the phone with DISH Network, and after an hour of talking until I was blue in the face, they did nothing more than condescend to me and refuse to make unacceptable situation satisfactory. But I guess a little background is in order...

About 6 months ago we decided to move from cable to satellite. It seemed logical because satellite offered similar programming to cable but cost less, and they claimed to have fewer outages, clearer reception, etc. In researching the few satellite service providers, DISH Network stood out for their programming and packages/pricing that appealed to us. Of course, when you call these companies as a "potential customer" they are your best friend and willing to do whatever it takes to sign the 18 month contract: waive this charge, free shipping, free install, we'll come by once a week and wash your cars, and so on...

So we took the plunge, and overall, the service was better than cable; better reception for sure and we had more channels to choose from for less than what we paid for cable, great. There were a few problems at the onset, however:

I am a baseball fan, and everyone knows satellite providers usually charge a premium for local sports programming. So I asked the agent (at this point my bestest buddy) if that were the case. I was reassured that in my package I would receive a specific local station that aired all season games for my local team. This was completely untrue, of course, and I would need to shell out an additional amount per month to see my team play.

The technicians they sent to do the install were incompetent. They asked me if I had a ladder so they could get on the roof. You are a satellite dish install tech, and you don't have a ladder? K...

After the install was complete, I was not getting reception for like 2 dozen channels. The kind of person I am, even if all the channels not coming in are Home Shopping and Oxygen for Women and I have no intention of watching them, I want what I paid for. So they sent another tech (this one had a ladder) who came to the conclusion that the previous guy basically screwed up the install. He fixed it and I had all one hundred-some-odd channels at my disposal, sweet.

My first bill shows charges for things I know nothing about; one is a charge for NOT having my satellite receiver connected to a phone line. Apparently, the receiver can either do daily programming updates through a phone line, or via the satellite signal and the satellite method costs extra, weird. It seems like a simple problem, but whoever built our house decided to only put phone jacks in the master bedroom and the kitchen, so I would either have to run a ridiculously long phone line to one of these jacks, which my wife wouldn't appreciate for it's lack of aesthetic value, or have a line put in by the phone company at around $100, which is more than the monthly charges for the 18 months of my contract. So, we decided to eat the monthly charge. I did try to talk to an agent of the company and explain the situation in hopes that they would waive the fee, even for just a month or two (to the tune of $10), and the people who were previously waiving every fee conceivable to get me to sign on were suddenly the biggest tight wads I have ever known.

After those few issues were over things went well. Good service, clear reception, no outages for 6 months, nice. Maybe they really are better than cable and as they claim: "Better TV for All"

Fast forward to last week...

We recently decided to quick watching TV cold turkey and limit our viewing to DVDs, this way we spend more time with the kids and we can better control what we and our little ones are watching. I am addicted to television and can easily spend 3 or 4 hours zoned out in front of the tube not interacting with anyone. My wife hates television and wishes we didn't even have one in the house. I noticed my daughter was starting to retire to a quiet corner of the living room when the TV came on and daddy was plopped on the couch. It turns out I had programmed her that when TV was on, daddy was unavailable, so she learned to amuse herself at these times. That realization really hurt, so I decided, and my wife enthusiastically agreed that we needed to cancel our satellite service.

And now the really bad news. I called DISH Network Friday fully expecting them to do their darndest to try and keep us as customers, and they did not disappoint. They offered discounts, smaller viewing packages (as I had told them we wanted to watch less), you name it. I thanked them for their earnest and asked them to cancel service anyway. At this point they explained that since I was canceling my contract early, I would be charged a fee based on a $13 per month early cancellation fee for every month of my contract that wasn't fulfilled. I was fine with that and it came to around $170.

Now this is the key part of the conversation: the agent (forgot her name, last time I do that) asked if I wanted these fees charged to my account immediately, or did I want to be billed for them along with the remaining service charges. I said, "Go ahead and send me a bill and I will pay everything at the same time." She said, "Okay" and after a fond farewell and a promise to take me back should I ever decide I wanted to resume my life as a couch potato, we were done. Oh, I forgot to mention this and it is a little comical. There was still the issue of hardware, both the receivers in the house, and the dish on my roof; this is how they handle that: they send you boxes and you have to send them their hardware back, including some part of the satellite dish. So I have to climb up onto my roof and use a screwdriver to get this thing or they will charge me some other fee. Great, now I am risking life and limb, fine.

So now I am waiting for the boxes to show up, and in the meantime, my checking account shows a charge of $173, that they had charged to my account the SAME DAY I CANCELLED! This along with several overdraft fees charged to my checking account as I never transferred adequate fees to cover a charge that I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT! I was livid! I called them this morning and explained to the agent I got connected with and I just got the run around. She kept citing the original contract, which apparently states that legally they can come for my first born child if I cancel early, guess I should have read that part. She told me that they normally don't bill for cancellations, and that the agent who I spoke to originally never noted the account to reflect that we had such an agreement. By this time, I was raising my voice and challenging her to explain to me, apart from a legal standpoint, why what they did was okay. She just kept saying, "The contract says..." and "...I understand, and I am very sorry, but there is nothing we can do..." which is the LAST thing a dissatisfied customer wants to hear. I know, I worked in customer service for nine years; we went out of our way to win clients over by bending company policy. I told her I wanted to talk to someone who could help me, so she got a supervisor, who I fully expected to give me the same story, just more forcefully and with the experience of someone who had been giving folks the run around much longer. Once again, they did not disappoint.

She hemmed and hawed, basically saying that she understood, but their hands were tied. She even said, "Let me go talk to someone to see if there is an outside chance we could do something" and put me on hold. At this point, she probably got a cup of coffee, used the restroom, and told a co-worker about the "jerk" she had on hold. She then came back, "I am very sorry...", "I understand, but"; an interesting word, "but", it basically means, "Everything said before 'but' means nothing, while everything after is what is REALLY going to happen".

So nada, zilch, nothing. No big surprise really, it happens all the time with various "service providers". They only care about the bottom line and no one seems to care about winning the customer over and cultivating customer loyalty. And it's not like there isn't competition so where is the effort to be better than the next guy? I don't get it.

This also means I have to be the guy who asks for names, operator badge number, and makes sure to say, "Make sure you note the account please", which I will do begrudgingly, because down deep I would like to take the kindness and decency of people for granted (especially when I am paying them).

I intend to do what I can to let folks know that DISH Network is not the best choice for their satellite service needs. Consider yourself warned.

Now, now, play nice...

2006-11-13T15:07:00.000-08:00

I snagged this from Townhall.com:

Nice!

Predictions for the 2008 Elections

2006-11-10T15:04:00.000-08:00

This article by Chuck Baldwin sums up well my thoughts on why the Republicans lost the election and also makes some interesting, albeit dreary, predictions for the elections two years from now.

Here are some key excerpts:

Most people saw the handwriting on the wall for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. As for the Senate, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, so who controls the gavel is of little consequence.

Hear, hear! Why bother with two parties when they both look so much alike these days, let's have one party called the Repubrocrats and save some confusion.

George Bush's neocons have all but decimated whatever genuine conservatism remained in the GOP, and they did it on the backs of the faithful conservatives still in the party.

God Bless those true conservatives who actually make decisions based on principles that "pseudo-conservatives" only talk about.

That President Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signals a significant policy reversal for Bush. As late as the day before the election, Bush said emphatically that Rumsfeld would stay until the end of his term. But the day after Democrats seized the House, Rumsfeld was fired.

'Nuff said.

It does not take the gift of prophecy to predict that Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, will almost certainly assent to some form of an American troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Republican Party now understands that if the war in Iraq continues as it is into 2008, the GOP will be murdered at the polls, and the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she is) would most certainly win the White House. In other words, President Bush and Republicans are about to engage in the biggest "cut and run" strategy you have ever seen.

I hate the idea of leaving the people of Iraq in the lurch, but could Chuck be right that Republicans will cut and run to because it is politically expedient? Will the Democrats comparison of Iraq to Vietname turn out to be painfully accurate?

I, here and now, predict that the GOP nominee for president in 2008 will most definitely be a pro-choice "moderate" who will enthusiastically embrace the Bush/Pelosi doctrine of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as Bush's goal of establishing a North American Union. I also predict that he will most certainly endorse civil unions for same-sex couples.

Sounds incredible, but plausible doesn't it? Again, I hate the thought of this happening, but we as citizens need to face facts and use the power of our vote to change the course of this country. It sounds rather idealistic, but if Americans truly had the courage to vote in a candidate from a viable third party, I believe it would do wonders for our political system. At the very least it would rattle Democrats and Republicans out of complacency!

This pathetic loyalty to the GOP for some "lesser of two evils" mantra is so utterly bankrupt that only the most apathetic lackey could continue to embrace it.

Harsh but true. Voting against the candidate you dislike instead of for one you know can do the job is exactly what conservatives criticized the Democrats for when they voted for Kerry is it not?

It is time for the end of politics as usual and only you and I can make a real difference.

UPDATE:

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken the first steps in a possible bid for the 2008 Presidential nomination by forming an exploratory committee. The purpose of such a committee is to gauge the appeal of a potential candidate without officially putting your name in the hat and being subject to campaign rules.

The odds are against him getting nominated because of his stance on abortion rights, same-sex marriage and gun control, issues that are important to conservatives who he would have to win over to get the Republican ticket.

He definitely fits the bill of a moderate conservative nicely though. He became enormously popular in 2001 as Mayor of New York for his handling of the 911 attacks and for the drop in crime rates in that city during his two terms there. I don't believe this is enough to overcome his liberal leanings, however.

Let's hope he doesn't get too far.

The Aftermath...

2006-11-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

The successes this election of those more liberally minded folks is obvious, but what's with the bragging? A guy came by my desk and was telling me about all the great stuff Clinton did when he was in office!? They really are full of themselves right now.

I remember being polite when the Republicans won the House and although it may have occurred to me to run around telling every lib, "In your face!", I restrained myself.

Oh well, life goes on. There were a couple of key propositions that got passed that made me happy:

PROP A - build another airport in San Diego, not happenin'. We just renovated our existing airport at a huge cost.

PROP C - San Diego can contract out to non-city employees. Competition = better services at lower cost. Everybody wins.

PROP 1A - Make sure monies apportioned for a purpose is ACTUALLY USED for that purpose. Why we votin' on this again? Seems like common sense (unless you are a California beaurocrat).

PROP 83 - Tighter reins on sexual predators. They have to stay at least 2000 feet away from places children congregate, and they have to wear GPS, in the immortal words of the band Heat Wave, "Always and Forever".

I voted against every new bond measure, but I was in the minority and I think this has to do with the fact that people think "better roads, less traffic" sounds really good, but they don't care to know or understand WHERE that money comes from to get it done. So my kids will be paying for these bonds FOR-EV-ER (anybody seen "The Sandlot"?).

I did vote against the cigarette tax, which proponents said would save lives because people would be forces to smoke less for financial reasons. This one failed, so the special interest folks will have to find some other creative way to make money on a false premise, shouldn't be hard as they obviously have degrees in that particular area.

All in all, things didn't go terribly well for conservatives, but my faith lies not in people, but God ultimately.

Reality Check for Angelina Jolie

2006-10-18T08:50:00.000-07:00

In this article on Townhall.com, Michelle Malkin takes on statements made by the Hollywood actress regarding U.S. aid to foreign refugees. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on entertainers jumping on the soap box in a fit of righteous indignation and bashing our country without really seeing the big picture. Here is a key quote:

In the land of make-believe, Jolie's call to pour more tax dollars into the U.N. refugee agency's coffers might well help to stem the refugee tide. But in the real world, it will only perpetuate exploitation.

I was equally offended when Sean Penn took a plane to Iraq and came back "enlightened", pretending to have all the answers to the issues brewing in the Middle East. Some of these problems have been going on for centuries and are a direct result of corrupt governments and organizations, but the "Hollyweirdos" think throwing more money at the problem will make everything better.

What does fame and endless disposable income do to these people? Next time you wish for money, power and fame, remember, you too could be transformed into an elitist, self-righteous "Hollyweirdo".

California Marriage Safe

2006-10-06T09:11:00.000-07:00

Looks like the institution of marriage is safe in California (for now). Details here.

Of course, those interested in pushing the Gay Agenda on all Americans will not stop trying to redefine marriage to suit their needs. The most significant quote from the article, and the one that sums up my thoughts on this hot button topic:

"courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental institution as marriage."

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege and a majority of California voters cast their ballots in 2000 to define marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman. The people have spoken, but this doesn't deter those "hyper-politically correct" folks who think defining marriage this way somehow descriminates against them and those they ally with.

To some, this issue is not important and we should move on to more "pressing" matters. Do your homework and find out how redefining marriage has affected other countries who tried it. It is a significant change that will have a huge negative impact on our country. It is our responsibility as citizens to understand this issue and how it could potentially affect our culture and cast our votes accordingly.

Forgive My Lack of Posts...

2006-09-25T09:32:00.000-07:00

Things have been a bit hectic around here as of late, which is why I have not posted much. I do have several ideas I am "chewing on" and plan to put something up soon that will hopefully be thought-provoking.

In the meantime, I have been on a reading binge over the last month and would like to know if anyone has read any of the following titles, if so, what was your overall impression?

1. 1984 - George Orwell
2. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest - Ken Kesey
3. The Giver - Lois Lowry

I am currently reading "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury (if you have read it, please don't spoil it!).

1. What did you like/dislike about each book?
2. What thoughts were provoked while reading them?
3. Are any of the concepts presented relevant to our time?

Gang Bangers in the US Military Forces

2006-08-30T14:51:00.000-07:00

This is pretty shocking to hear. As if the military doesn't have enough to think about. There is also an interesting article here (Suntimes).

Looks like our armed forces are somewhat loose about who they decide to hire. Now gangs have the penal institutions and the military to use for their own brand of "higher education". God help the neighborhoods these people are from when they return ready to use their new found skills to inflict harm.

Who Says White Guys Can't Dance?

2006-08-17T13:37:00.000-07:00


The video says it all. I rest my case.

Will the real Aunt Viv please stand up?

2006-08-10T11:38:00.000-07:00

If you are looking for some serious discussion, check out my last entry, "The Good News" and get in on the exchange "Outside the Box" and I are having about Christianity. If you are looking for a little levity, read on...

As mentioned in an earlier blog, we have a new little boy at our house. This means getting up at least once in the "wee" hours to feed the little guy. We are blessed that he sleeps really well already and most times has to be stirred so we can give him a bottle. As mama is with both kids all day while I am at work, I have taken responsibility for doing this every night, which brings me to the subject of this post.

In order to stay awake, I usually turn on the TV and do some channel surfing. Of course, at 3am the only thing to watch is lots of infomercials. There is however an oasis in the midst of the desert; you can find an episode of Fresh Prince of Bel Air on at least one channel at any time of night. I love this show, and as it had it's heyday around the time I was in High School it brings back lots of memories.

Most of the characters are great and the show would not be the same without Will, Alfonso (who doesn't know how to do the "Carlton"?), and "Uncle Phil", AKA James Avery. Although the show ran for 6 years starting in 1990, I really don't remember not laughing out loud during an episode. I think they quit while they were still ahead creatively. The only problem I have with the show is when they changed the character of Aunt Vivian.

The first "Aunt Viv", Janet Hubert-Whitten (pictured, 1990-1993) was perfect for the role and I thought added alot to the dynamic of the show. Anybody remember when everybody was holiday shopping and Aunt Viv got suckered into making a record in one of those mall booths? She did "Proud Mary" some justice! I will admit, I had a big ol' teenage crush on Aunt Viv in the episode where she decided to return to her love of dance and enrolled in ballet classes (she was the "hot" Aunt Viv in that one). Aside from all that she added to the show, she was the "OG" Aunt Viv and as far as I am concerned, the ONLY one!

Apparently, Janet had some differences with cast members and decided to leave the show, while still pregnant no less. The nature of the disagreement is unknown to me but it's impact on my viewing enjoyment continues to this day, because it ushered in the era of the "Wack Aunt Viv", Daphne Reid (1993-1996).

They could not have chosen a more different person to play the character! She looks completely different physically (height, body type, even color), and her attitude sucks! She is the Aunt Viv who nags too much and stands with her arms crossed dissapprovingly 85% of the time. I always feel sorry for Uncle Phil when this Aunt Viv is on the scene. If I were him, they would have had an episode where Aunt Viv gets mysteriously found in the trunk of her Benz at the bottom of a lake or something. Picture Lame Aunt Viv standing in a music booth at the mall singing a Tina Turner song, never happen! Or how about sporting a leotard taking some dance lessons? I shudder at the thought! Would Wannabe Aunt Viv teach a class on African American History at Will and Carlton's prep school and teach Will a thing or two about the REAL Malcolm X? Not even close!

So, at 3 in the morning, picture me turning to one of a few channels and selecting one of several episodes of "Fresh Prince" hoping against all hope that the REAL Aunt Viv is representing.

1. Do you have an "Aunt Viv" preference? If so, why?

2. Favorite Fresh Prince episode?

3. Favorite character?

4. Know any good trivia about the show, or the actors?

The Good News

2006-08-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

I believe when man was created in the image of God, we had perfect fellowship with Him. Wanting us to love and obey Him willfully, God gave man a choice and provided guidelines and told him to eat freely of any tree in Eden except for one; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:15-17
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
(from New International Version)

With some help from a certain serpent, Eve chose to eat of this tree anyway as she saw that it was attractive and would certainly be good to taste.

Gen 3:1-5
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (notice here that the serpent takes what God said out of context by saying, 'any tree'; he has not changed his strategy a bit!)
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(from New International Version)

Eve perceived that understanding between good and evil would make her more like God, so pride was ultimately her downfall, and Adam gave in to the same temptation.

Gen 3:6-7
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
(from New International Version)

I find God's treatment of the situation to be a very interesting view into the character of God:

Gen 3:8-9
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
(from New International Version)

As the Bible says that God is omnipresent (existing everywhere) and omniscient (knowing all things), this question seems out of character, but I believe God wasn't trying to ascertain Adam's geographical whereabouts as much as He was trying to help Adam to realize what had occurred when he disobeyed. What He was really asking was, "Adam, where is your heart with me?" so Adam would do some analysis of himself and realize fellowship with his Creator had been broken. God's only concern is our hearts, and He uses every circumstance in life to help us realize where we are with Him; as creatures of His creation made for His enjoyment and glory, this is the most important question that can be asked.

Now the bad news; since Adam fell and sinned against God, and was subsequently cast out of God's fellowship, we, being from the same bloodline, inherited that same propensity to disobey God. I speak of what the Bible describes as the "sinful nature". This is that force within us that causes sin, and must be dealt with above all. The acts of sin that we commit are just a result of this nature working in us, so there are two kinds of sin, the act, and the nature that produces the act.

Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-
(from New International Version)

So the sin nature was passed to us from Adam, and the result was that we committed the act of sin, in fact, we can do nothing else.

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(from New International Version)

Eccl 7:20
20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.
(from New International Version)

Gal 3:22
22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin,
(from New International Version)

1 John 1:8
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
(from New International Version)

It would be to your benefit for me to leave you at this point for a time to ponder your fallen state before a righteous and holy God. What comes next is grace, which is never sweeter than when it is given in our hour of most dire need; when we are laid low and understand how unworthy we really are.

But on to the good news. God did not leave it at that, but carefully restored us to fellowship with him by making the ultimate sacrifice. In the Old Testament, in order for sin to be forgiven, the blood (or life) of a spotless animal had to be spilled annually. The animal died as a propitiation, or appeasement, for the sins that were committed, so God's justice was satisfied for all the sinful acts of the prior year and punishment, which sin deserves, was avoided (phew!). These animal sacrifices were not the end, but were a shadow of things to come and in fact only dealt with the act of sin and not the nature that was guilty of committing them.

God desired to make one final sacrifice, which would satisfy His justice once and for all, so that we could be restored to fellowship with Him unconditionally and permanently. What He did was send a perfect man, Jesus Christ, to live on the earth for 33 years without sin (the lamb without blemish or spot):

Isaiah 53:9
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
(from New International Version)

Jesus lived on earth for the purpose of being the ultimate example of a life that was lived to please God. But even He knew that His purpose in coming here was to die, to be a propitiation for all of mankind.

1 John 2:1-2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
(from New International Version)

2 Cor 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(from New International Version)

Rom 5:6-8
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(from New International Version)

Christ satisfied the Law of God through His death.

So you see, the answer to the big question, "How does one get to heaven?" what I like to call enjoying fellowship with God forever, is really very simple.

Rom 10:9-11
9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
(from New International Version)

Notice I have said nothing about some number of works that you must do; no pilgrimage, no chants, no "Our Fathers". The verse above clearly states, "It is with your heart that you believe and are justified". So it is a matter of belief! Christ did everything, and we must simply lay hold of it! That really is "good news"!

What must one do to avoid heaven? That too is simple. Ignore the facts that were just given to you and you will die separated from God, which is the second, or spiritual, death.

Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(from New International Version)

Is God Politically Correct?

2006-07-20T15:04:00.000-07:00

Everywhere I turn there is this view of religion that assumes God is more interested in our definition of "fair" than in being specific about what He requires of us. This politically correct view of God is what causes allot of people to come to the conclusion that all religions are basically the same, just a different road leading to the same Higher Power, Supreme Being and a dozen other names given to God that strive, not to inform or edify, but to be as inoffensive as possible. This philosophy is paved with good intentions that struggle to be as inclusive as possible so that, heaven forbid, no single person is left out.

Let me offer this.

Remember the story of Cain and Abel? Cain was a farmer, and gave some of the first fruits of his crop on the altar. Abel killed an animal and gave that as his form of worship. What happened? Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God because it was not according to the manner in which God required.

The "fair-minded" person would cry out, "Injustice! This is not fair!" Why would God reject Cain's sacrifice? Was it not given with the best of intentions? He labored for that crop, planting the seeds, watering them carefully and patiently waited for the seeds to sprout and grow into a plant that produces fruit. Why would a benevolent and loving God reject this man's sacrifice but accept the sacrifice of his brother?

The answer is simple: Abel followed the instructions. God made it known to them both how He wanted sacrifices to be made and left them to choose. Abel chose well and his sacrifice pleased God, while Cain chose poorly and brought him correction. Let's look a little further at God's response.

Gen 4:6-7
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
(From New International Version)

God didn't respond to Cain with punishment, but correction. He gave Cain an opportunity to correct himself and have his sacrifice be accepted. What a benevolent master!

How did Cain respond? He lured his brother Abel to a field where he killed him and attempted to hide the remains from God.
I ask you, is God unfair or unjust in punishing Cain by casting him out of His presence and cursing the rest of his days? I think not.

In the same way that God required Cain and Abel to worship Him in a very specific manner, He also wants us to worship in a prescribed way.

Now that we have a view of God and his requirements, let us take a look at how different religions describe what our purpose is.

Atheism: Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems.

Buddhism: Purpose is to avoid suffering and gain enlightenment and release from cycle of rebirth, or at least attain a better rebirth by gaining merit.

Gnosticism: Humans can return to the spiritual world through secret knowledge of the universe.

Hinduism: Humans are in bondage to ignorance and illusion, but are able to escape. Purpose is to gain release from rebirth, or at least a better rebirth.

Islam: Humans must submit (islam) to the will of God to gain Paradise after death.

(credit to ReligionFacts for the info.)

There are obviously hundreds more, but I believe the list above will serve us well in our comparative analysis.

Every one of the religions listed above, as well as those not mentioned, believe and teach that their way to live for God and ultimately (for some) spend eternity with Him is THE way. Obviously they are not all the same, while they all teach ultimately that man should be morally good, they are all very different in describing why.

Simple analysis brings me to the conclusion that if all of these teachings are fundamentally different, we must draw one of the following conclusions:

1. They are ALL wrong.
2. One of them is right.

What we can not conclude is that they are ALL correct, because they disagree. God is not a God of confusion, but order, and it goes against His character to write a different prescription of worship for every culture that contradicts the way in which some other culture must worship.

Would God on one hand tell the atheist to ignore Him and depend on man to solve the world's problems, while at the same time tell the Muslim to submit to Him in order to live a good life and get to heaven?

It is important to remember that God created us and owes us nothing, while we owe Him our very lives. He us fully justified in asking what he wants of us, even if it offends us or violates our sensibilities. He is not obligated to us in any way but He is obligated to adhere to His own character and principles. What is exciting is that He gives us access to His thoughts, character, and principles through what He created: nature, the people around us, and the written word.

Most significant of all, and more exciting, is that He came into our history as a man by way of a virgin birth, lived a perfect, sinless life for 33 years, was crucified in spite of His innocence on our behalf, was buried in a tomb for 3 days and rose again to conquer death; again, on behalf of those whom He has no obligation as the creatures of His own creation. I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about history. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about having a relationship with the one who created us, ultimately fulfilling our purpose for existing.

We are the ones that have fallen away through endless intellectual pontification, by limiting God to what we can understand or conceive, the clay telling the Potter how we must be formed and to what end He must use us. This is the worst form of pride, especially in the face of what He has done in spite of our hearts that have been darkened.

God exists and created us to glorify and worship him. I don't mean worship as in standing in a church holding your hands up singing at the top of your lungs (this is the picture that always pops into my head when that word is spoken), although this is certainly a valid form of worship, but worshipping God with our thoughts, actions, words, conversations, generosity, and the like. He, as the creator, has the right to require that our worship be done in a very specific manner.

Do you desire to worship God in the specific way that He requires? If so, you must search and decide what is the "sacrifice of Cain" and what is the acceptable form of worship, because He is NOT politically correct, nor is He interested in our definition of fairness or worship.

Rare Please

2006-07-12T14:39:00.000-07:00

First off, I need to give due to James Manning for inspiring me to write this with his post about gas versus charcoal grilling. (Charcoal IS better, by the way)

I have long been a fan of meat cooked as rare as humanly possible. In the words of a close friend, "Just knock the horns off and walk it through a warm kitchen!" Yummy. No, this is not just a macho male thing, where we eat something we really find disgusting to prove how manly we are. A steak, especially a Ribeye, but of pretty much any cut, tastes better rare than it does well-done. It's like comparing fine cuisine with eating the sole of a shoe.

I believe strongly that the only people that really enjoy a well-done steak are those that are "grossed out" by the sight of a little blood on their plate, which is no reason to sacrifice flavor and moisture in your favorite cut of beef.

The whole fear of diseases excuse doesn't hold water either, as any chef will tell you, as long as the internal temperature of the meat reaches a certian number of degrees, there is no harmful bacteria. How else could EVERY steak house offer rare meat as an option?

There are certian establishments that will not serve meat cooked rare. I have been to more than one place that, when asked to prepare a steak or burger rare, the server responded with, "I'm sorry sir, we can only do meduim."

Weenies.

My wife can give personal testimony of conversion from well done to rare. She was of the lot that was offended by red juicy goodness on her plate until one day, before we were married, she came to the house so that I could prepare a couple of ribeyes. When I asked her preference for doneness, she answered, "Well done please." I asked why of course as I am always concerned when people choose not to really enjoy their food, but would rather chew on a baseball glove, to which she responded, "It just grosses me out!" I talked her into trying it rare, and she has never eaten a well done steak since! So don't tell me people can't convert!

Let me take a moment to rate some local steak houses according to their preparation technique (the flavor of the meat also has alot to do with how the raw meat is cured and every place has a different method), in order of preference:

1. Black Angus: by far the best, they have been in San Diego as long as I can remember and are still doing it right. I always get grilled onion and mushrooms on the side of a big ol' ribeye steak.

2. The Turf: this local eatery actually just hands you your cut of choice and lets you cook it yourself! Great for getting your steak the way you want and meeting new people with a love for dead flesh. It is cheaper than having someone else prepare it too.

3. Chili's: I know, it's not even a steak house, but for a non-steak house, they have the best ribeye around, and will prepare it pretty rare if you ask with a healthy side of grilled mushrooms, onions, and veggies.

4. Outback Steakhouse: purposely at the end of my list AND below Chili's because, in my opinion, they are the most overrated steakhouse around. This is what I call a trendy establishment, and for those meat lovers who haven't found out for themselves, don't bother.

1. How do you order your steak? And more importantly, why?
2. If you are a "well done", have you, or could you be persuaded to, try a rare cut of meat?
3. What is your favorite cut of meat, and what do you get on the side?
4. Take a moment to let us know about some good steak restaraunts in your neck of the woods.

My Son's Birth Story

2006-07-10T12:45:00.000-07:00

I was completely ignorant of the whole concept of birth stories until I met my wife. She became very interested in birth once we learned our daughter (now 17 months old, time flies!) was on the way and immersed herself in everything birth related. We decided then to take classes on the Bradley method of childbirth due to its philosophy of natural childbirth (and by that I mean birth with as little medical intervention as possible) for the sake of the child. It was during one of these classes that I was introduced to the concept of the Birth Story. We were encouraged to write our ideal Birth Story for our unborn daughter and to ask our parents about ours. I had never even considered asking my mother to describe the events surrounding my birth before, but when I asked and heard the story, it gave me more of a sense of being than I had ever had before. It was like my story now had a beginning that was more definite than "when I was younger". I encourage anyone who has been born ;) or has children to be prepared to share these stories; I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how people respond.

In that spirit, here is the story of how my son was born:

At the time we learned our second child was on the way, our daughter was a mere 6 months old and we had barely, if at all, gotten used to this new person so the news was initially a shock. Needless to say, we hadn't planned on having a second child so soon, although we definitely wanted at least one or two more at some point. What is comical too, and please excuse me if this is too much info, is that we were using contraception at the time our son was conceived, but one passionate evening we went without because Daddy didn't want to wait, or go to the store! At any rate, when people ask the question (quite often by the way), "Did you guys plan that pregnancy?" our answer is always, "No, God did!"

So upon finally hearing the "Big News", we began to go to the usual appointments and such and our minds began to envision what the birth would be like. It should be noted that the birth of our daughter, although we planned on having her naturally, ended up being a cesarean section after 56 hours of labor. Although that is a heck of a long time, we felt, and still feel the doctor was hasty in deciding on surgery as Mother and baby were both fine (albeit VERY tired!). As this was most likely done to avoid being sued in the case that something did go wrong, my wife and I struggled for some time with the disappointment that the birth of our daughter was essentially taken out of our control and instead of being performed without medical intervention, had every medical intervention known to man.

We also had the fun task of letting people know the good news; needless to say the grandparents were especially thrilled; they are addicted to grandbabies! Some people, upon hearing the news and noticing how young our daughter still was, would cast a glance at me as if to say, "You barbarian! Give the woman a break!" Of course, being male, I beamed with pride at how easily I could make babies happen and gave myself the nickname, "Sharp Shooter". Also keep in mind, my wife and I were married April 24, 2004 and here we were in mid 2006 expecting baby #2. My wife has spent the better part of our marriage carrying a baby and not being able to see her feet!

We decided on hypno-birthing this time around and wanted a home birth to hopefully avoid the pitfalls of hospital birth where doctors essentially treat pregnant woman as if they have some dreaded disease and haven't been birthing babies for centuries.

Let me take a second to clarify something before I continue; when I say "We decided" what I mean is, my wife decided and I supported her in that decision, I would never mandate that my wife have any certain method of birth as it is something that she ultimately has to bear, no matter how good of a cheering squad she has.

Once it was clear my wife would birth at home a few things became automatic:
1. We needed a Midwife and a Doula as part of our "Birth Team".

2. We needed lots of support from our relatives to the people at our church so we put the word out. So the interview process began. After talking with several people of both professions (and hiring and firing one or two) and lots of meditation and prayer, we had found the perfect team to assist us in having our child at home. What a load off!

3. We needed to come up with some money, because most insurance won't even cover home birth, and if they do, it is a pay first get reimbursed later kind of situation.

We proceeded by faith, knowing that God would provide all that we needed spiritually, emotionally, and materially for this home birth as it was our firm conviction (most of the time) that this was indeed His will and not ours.

All in all, the pregnancy went pretty well, and then again I wasn't the pregnant one now was I? The things I noticed were that wifey's nausea didn't last as long as it did with our first, and we generally weren't surprised by certain developments related to pregnancy because, after all, we had been here before!

At 10 weeks, we opted to have an ultrasound to not only determine the gender of the baby, but also to make sure everything was as it should be concerning the health of the fetus. An interesting thing, when we found out it was a boy, I had a feeling of joy that was not greater than the joy I had with my daughter, but different somehow. It's hard to describe, but some part of me was just satisfied now that I knew a boy was coming. Maybe it has something to do with that innate part of the male that wants to procreate and carry on his seed or something like that.

At some point during the pregnancy, my wife and I both became confident that this child would be born earlier than the expected due date. Don't ask why, it was just a "gut" thing, and our daughter was a week early, so the odds favored our theory. As the days passed, and the due date passed, our impatience reached a point to where any hint of a labor pain, no matter how subtle, made us almost jump. We were at the edge of our seats! It didn’t help that normally after a woman has given birth before, her body start "getting ready" a lot earlier so we endured weeks of "false alarms".

Finally, on May 29th 2006, around 10:30pm, my wife wakes me up and says, "This is it!” Now mind you, we have had this happen a couple times before and it wasn't "it" but something in her behavior told me this was something different. Most people who have had children before will tell you that when real labor starts, it's like being in love, you just know.

I immediately called Dawn, our doula and let her know things had started so she should be ready to get over to our house on short notice. I then started getting the house ready: turning off all the lights and lighting candles to create a calm environment, soft music, getting rid of any clutter so mama wouldn't be distracted by disorganization. I also started filling a child inflatable pool with warm water in the dining room as wifey wanted to try using this for pain management. Remember, we are not at a hospital so to manage pain, we helped her get into various positions, including sitting on an exercise ball, the kiddy pool, and anything that works basically.

Shortly after I started running my little errands, mama (who earlier had just told me to let Dawn know what was going on, no rush says, "Call Dawn and tell her I need her." So I called Dawn and she was on her way. By now it had been probably less than an hour and mama was really feeling the pain and seemed surprised at how much she was having.

Dawn arrives and starts doing her little routine preparatory things in a very methodical way, you could tell she had done this many times, probably with little sleep herself. We found out later she had basically just returned from a birth right around the time I called to alert her and had managed about 30 minutes sleep.

Close to 2 hours in and mama is moaning at the surges (contractions to most, we assigned non-negative terms to all normally used labor words to maintain a positive, stress free environment). At this time she asked if she could get in the pool, and Dawn suggested she wait as it seemed a bit early. Dawn and I were taking turns using a combination of aroma therapy lotion scented with lavender and light touch massage on my wife's legs to help her deal with the surges.

Less than an hour later, mama wants the pool again and this time Dawn concedes. I made sure the water was nice and warm as 107 degrees is ideal. I had hooked up a garden hose to the kitchen sink with an adapter so we could control water temperature. So we did the pool thing for a while, which seemed to help. After we had done this for a bit, Dawn told me to call the midwife and put her on red alert too. Our doula had been to so many births that she estimated mama's progress based solely on her body language and give a pretty good estimation of her cervical opening without an exam, amazing!

When the midwife and her assistant arrived we were still in the pool, and now mama was completely focused, no more chit chat and asking questions, she was serious now. I estimate this was around 6 o'clock am, so she has been at it for almost 8 hours. The midwives have a lot more preparation to do as they have a lot more medical equipment at their disposal. They also had to check that we had all of the necessary medical supplies. They have kits for home birth complete with all necessary latex gloves, gauze, etc.

From between 7am and 10am it seemed like we just moved mama around the house to try different things, which I am sure drove the midwives crazy as they kept having to move their stuff around. We had set up pain management "stations" all over the house: an exercise ball here, birth stool there, the pool of course, so mama just kept going where it sounded good.

It was around this time that wifey wanted to know how far along things were and asked the midwife to do what would be her first cervical exam, which would tell us how open she was. I think she was at 8cm by this point which meant not long to go, hopefully.

Not too long after this, we were in the bed trying side positions, and mama was getting a lot of back pain and the midwives and doula decided it may have been due to the position of the baby. For those familiar with labor, back pain is usually associated with the baby being in a posterior birth position, where the baby is facing mama's front instead of back. Babies are born this way a lot, but it causes more pain for the birthing mother. That wasn't the case with our son, for him it was that his feet were sticking straight out under my wife's sternum, and his head was right next to her tailbone. When she had surges, you could actually see his head moving down, wow! This was giving mama more pain than normal so we tried moving the baby. We started by having mama alternate lying on each side for a time to encourage the baby to slide into the right position, which didn't seem to do much.

It was at this time that mama decided the whole home birth thing was too much and that we should load her up in the car and go to the hospital. We talked to her and reminded her of her birth plan and her dream of having the baby at home, but she was adamant! Finally, the midwife dismissed everyone to the living room and left me and mama alone in the bedroom to chat. I again reminded her of what she wanted so badly and that if she caved now she might regret it. She said, "I don't care! I wanna go!" (This was expressed in the brattiest tone she could muster; she might as well have crossed her arms and stuck out her bottom lip). I also knew that she was at the point called transition, where the baby begins to make its way into the pelvis. The body responds to this development by increasing the amount of hormones in the bloodstream, a natural pain management tool which also causes mother to become confused and disoriented. This completely undermines their confidence as well, which explains perfectly my wife's assertion that she absolutely can not go on. I continued to persuade, but she wasn't budging. Finally, she commanded me, "Go and tell Michelle (midwife) that we are going!" My reply was, "I am not telling her anything, YOU ARE!" So I went to Michelle and told her my wife wanted to speak to her. I late found out this was the LAST thing my wife wanted, as she felt she would be less effective in manipulating her.

My wife continued to be stubborn, so Michelle suggested they do another exam and find out how things were progressing. She discovered that the bag of water had not yet broken and suggested that breaking it manually might get things going and ease the pressure of the back pain. Mama agreed that this was a good idea, to which we all breathed a sigh of relief! None of us wanted to go to a hospital at this stage. So the waters were broken manually, which did ease the pain and gave mama back some of her resolve.

There was still the problem with the baby being too close to her tailbone, so we tried one last thing. I leaned against a wall holding mama under her arms with the two midwives on each of her sides supporting her body weight as she had to completely relax. Meanwhile the doula was holding under mama's pregnant tummy and lifting straight up. We did this 4 times and by then everyone was exhausted. We also tried similar things with her sitting and various other ways. According to the midwife, it helped.

Let me just tell you, by this time, I was so tired I had almost passed out and had basically only had water to drink since 10:30pm and it was probably 11am. I know, I know, this was nothing compared to what my wife was experiencing, but the point is, having a birth at home is hard work for EVERYONE involved!

My wife's mother was with us fortunately and was watching our one year old (she was a God send!)And she made some food for everyone. After eating, the midwife suggested I take a short nap, as they had done so and could see I was pretty wiped out. I took their advice and lay down.

I think I slept for about 30 minutes, so by my estimation it would be about 11:30am or so. I got up and went into the kitchen where my wife was, you guessed it, back in the water! She was working pretty hard and grandma and our daughter was in the kitchen as well. I got behind mama and let her rest her weight against me as the side of the inflatable pool wasn't real supportive. We did this for a couple minutes tops, and someone suggested it was pushing time. Not long to go now!

It took about 20 minutes of good pushes, and the doula said, "She's crowning!" and they told me to reach under and feel my sons head. It was under water, so it was wet and really fuzzy. My wife was really getting the urge to push and the team suggested she only push through every other surge and breathe through the rest, to allow her perineum to stretch. She ignored this and was pushing away every time and this is when she really got loud! Up until now it was mostly low, guttural moans and whimpering, but now she was screaming at the top of her lungs. My daughter was a little traumatized by this so grandma took her into the next room.

By now I am right in front of mama, who is lying in the pool at a 45 degree angle, and holding the little fuzzy round thing and all of a sudden my mama pushes and our son literally shoots out of her into my hands! I can't describe to you how amazing this was! One moment, he is in her body, and the next I am holding his body and seeing his hands, feet, fingers, toes, his umbilical cord, wow!

I felt his wet little warm body, which was all blue and really long! He seemed like a tangle of arms and legs! I was thinking he was a big fella while I handed him to my wife, who kept saying, "Oh my God, I can't believe this!" She was definitely in shock at what she had just done, and it took a minute to process that she was holding the baby that was inside her. At some point, the cord had gotten around his neck and my wife, in shock, kept lifting him straight up, to which the midwife kept saying, "Don't lift him up, keep him down!" She finally listened after the second time and we got the cord untangled.

The baby had good heartbeat right away, but seemed to have trouble respirating for a couple minutes which was scary. He stayed that blue color for what seemed to me like too long, and the midwife kept ordering us to rub him and talk to him. I was very scared at this point as I sensed everything was not as it should be. My wife had torn a bit as well and the pool water was red with her blood, adding to my panic. The midwife kept giving the baby oxygen and he finally let out a good cry! What a relief! There was a split second there where I went to that place in my mind where I may have to deal with my son dying at birth. That was definitely the worst feeling, but it passed quickly and he was fine after all.

In the end, we were both glad we decided to have home birth, it was awesome and we can tell our son when he gets older what his birth was like and how much we went through just so he could be healthy.

He was born at 12:10pm, May 30, 2006 at 9 pounds 14 ounces and 22 1/2 inches long. Baby and mama are doing great and big sister loves having a little brother.

Our family is feeling complete now; I guess we will wait a bit before making any more babies.

A Bit of a Sabbatical

2006-06-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

I have barely had time to peruse the blogs as of late, much less actually write one myself. I miss this therapy, but the trade-off is I get to spend time with my son, who was born just a few weeks ago.

Psalm 127:3-5
3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
(from New International Version)

So that makes 1 girl and 1 boy, which means the pressure to "keep trying" is off and we can wait a few years before adding more to our family. The missus will probably enjoy having a view of her feet again as she has been pregnant for the better part of the last 2 years. It's the least I can do, after all, she gave me a son!

Eli was born at home under water (this was amazing and I am considering posting the birth story) and weighed in at 9 pounds, 14 ounces, and was 22 1/2 inches long (a "big 'un" indeed!). After 3 weeks of eating and sleeping, he is already in excess of 10 pounds, outgrown newborn diapers and clothes, and is keeping me and Mrs. Bullfrog on our toes to say the least.

Our daughter is taking it all in stride and loves to greet her little brother with a, "Hi Eli!" and a gentle pat on the head (VERY adorable).

I have been reading your posts and have a few blogs stored up, to be published later, time permitting.

Happy blogging.

Testimony of Jeremiah Robinson

2006-06-01T10:38:00.000-07:00

Be warned, this is a long blog, but I promised I would share how I became a Christian, so here is my story:

I was born and raised in San Diego along with an older brother by a single mother. We were taught to be honest, hard-working and self-sufficient. The subject of religion or God was never really talked about. Life was about earning a living, having a family and treating others as you would like to be treated.

My childhood was somewhat unstable due to the fact that we moved around a lot. From the time I was born we lived in San Diego, Arizona, Oklahoma, Northern California, and even lived in the Philippines for two years when I was 10 years old. Raising two boys on her own was difficult for my mother but she did the best she knew how and we always knew we were loved. Both of my parents were using drugs and alcohol from the time I was a baby and my mother sold drugs from time to time to make ends meet so I was exposed to a lot of things early on that I probably should not have been.

I enjoyed school and always got good grades and managed to stay out of trouble for the most part. Having an older brother who got into trouble a lot helped me to decide what not to do. It wasn’t until my senior year of High School that I decided to start using drugs and alcohol. I did this partly because I had started my senior year at a new school and it was an easy way to gain acceptance from the peer group that was around, and that is what you are “supposed” to do senior year right? My older brother partied a lot and our house was the “place to be” for a while. Using drugs and drinking gave me instant friends (of course, the sincerity of those friendships would not be understood until later). By the end of my senior year most of the people I spent time with were involved with drugs or gangs and had spent some part of their life incarcerated. These weren’t what I considered to be “bad” people but people who had poor decisions and they didn’t make the best role models.

About a year after graduating high school I was living in my Grandmothers house and working full time. On the weekends I would drink and get high and I had pretty much accepted that that was the life I wanted to live. I saw family in my future but to me drugs and alcohol would always play a part in my recreation. My Aunt Rose was living next door to me at the time and she would always invite me to church and tell me about Jesus. I basically thought she was nuts and didn’t really care to hear about it. I saw her as weak because she needed some higher power to get through life and I didn’t need that.

She was very persistent in inviting me to church every week, although I would not relent, I simply didn’t see the point and was content with my life. One particular weekend, my Aunt Rose told me that the high school ministry at her church was having a special guest, a Christian rap group called “Christian MCs”. This I was intrigued by my love of rap music to go, and I thought maybe my crazy Aunt would finally stop bugging me about this Jesus person! So I went and listened to the concert, which was good, and of course it was followed by the gospel message. I felt really out of place there and didn’t plan to go back.

Around June of 1993, a new girl named Jennifer was hired at my job and I developed an instant attraction to her physically. In talking to her I found out she was a Christian and she started inviting me to church. I started going to church with Jennifer, my aunt, and her son, my cousin Trevor on Wednesday nights and Sunday mornings for the purpose of impressing Jennifer and getting her to like me. I hoped that my “hard work” would pay off in at least a physical relationship, if nothing else.

In July 1993 an outreach called “Harvest” was in town and would be at the local sports stadium then called Jack Murphy Stadium. Jennifer was going, so guess what? So was I! My aunt and cousin attended as well. There were several speakers from various local churches talking about God, Jesus, and the rest. I was just thinking, “Blah, blah, let’s get this over with so we can go!”

The final speaker was Pastor Greg Laurie from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and he shared a message about the Prodigal Son:

The story is about a man who grows tired of living according to his father’s wishes and decides to take his inheritance and strike out on his own. His father gives him what he asks for and sends him on his way, wishing him well.

The man soon squanders his inheritance and is working as a servant feeding the pigs of a farmer. He is so poor and hungry that one day he found himself tempted by the pig slop, and eats some! Of course it’s terrible and he thinks to himself, “Even my father’s servants eat and live better than I am. I will go back to him and beg for a job as one of his servants, as I don’t deserve be his son.”

He heads for home, and his father sees him from far off, recognizes him, and rejoices at his sons return. He commands one of his servants to slaughter a calf to roast in celebration and runs to his son. He greets him with a kiss on the cheek and an embrace, placing his signet ring on his finger and some fine clothes, signifying his restoration to full sonship.

At that moment, everything the speaker was saying became clear to me and 3 things which never occurred to me suddenly became obvious:

1. There was a God.
2. He loved me dearly and wanted to restore me to sonship.
3. My sin was keeping me from Him.

Seems like bad news, until Pastor Greg shared that God had made a way, through His own son Jesus, for me to be forgiven and reconciled. Greg offered that anyone who felt called to give their heart to Christ could pray with him and receive the free gift of salvation.

I was literally on the edge of my seat, wanting to go down to the football field and turn my life over to God, but I was hesitant, too embarrassed to make a spectacle of myself. Suddenly, my 12 year old cousin Trevor leans over and asks, “Do you want to go down?” I said, “Yes!” and instantly got up. He led the way down to the field where hundreds were already gathered and I prayed with them that God would accept me on behalf of Christ and restore me to son ship and eternal life with Him.

And He did.

The last 13 years since then has been an adventure, to say the least, but that is a subject of perhaps another blog.

What Happens... Part 2

2006-05-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of philosophies dealing with death.

Some believe in Heaven and Hell and that in order to choose which place you go to, you must make the right choices in life, be a "good person". In this case, Heaven and Hell can take on a variety of definitions but sufficed to say, one is meant to reward, while the other is designed to punish.

Others believe we live multiple lives, taking on different forms depending, once again, on our performance and treatment of our fellow man.

One I always found interesting is the belief that we are just annihilated at death, nothing lives on beyond that.

As most philosophies and religions teach that death is indeed not really the end, let us leave the "annihilated at death" argument and assume that while our bodies are mortal, some part of us lives on after our flesh has expired.

For the sake of the discussion, I will refer to this part of humankind as "essence" (any Emeril fans out there?).

Presumably, the essence is eternal. And specifically I mean that it lives on forever, but not necessarily that it had no beginning. The question is did it have a beginning? At conception, did we "inherit" this essence from our mother? Or did our father pass it on to us? Assuming this essence had no real beginning but has always been there, where did it come from? Did it emanate from another being, or did all of our individual "essences" co-exist together before they lived in us?

All of these questions, if we took them seriously, would profoundly affect our lives.

If we just disappear and no part of us lives on, then we really aren't obligated to be "good" to ourselves or one another except for the purely selfish motive that we want to live well while we are here. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

On the other hand, if there is a Heaven and Hell where we are either punished or rewarded based on our performance, suddenly we have incentive to act right, or as right as we know how.

What is it within man that motivates him to be kind, generous, careful, thoughtful, and all the others qualities that make us human? Is there really a "basic goodness" that we all posses?

Either we are accountable to the giver of this life, we by nature "respect" the essence of others, or we are just being good for the sake of our own enjoyment.

Do you believe in a literal heaven and hell, or reincarnation? Or maybe annihilation?

If you believe in the eternal part of humankind, where did it come from?

Are we accountable to the source of this life?

What Happens to Us When We Die?

2006-05-17T15:39:00.000-07:00

This may sound like a childish question to some, but eventually, everyone ponders this thought. Human mortality is a fact of life, but do any of us really take it seriously unless it is our time to go?

This is something I never gave a second thought when I was younger. What pre-teen or teenager wants to think about dying, much less the hereafter? Part of youth is that feeling of being invincible, nothing can touch you!

For me, getting married and then having children helped to make me aware that I will not always be around. It's funny how being depended upon by others accomplishes this. I take better care of myself in a lot of different ways solely because I want to be there for the people who need me for as long as possible.

Another life event that forces you to ponder death is when you lose loved ones. For me it was grandparents, an uncle, I lost my first wife who was only 35 at the time. The relative age of those you lose affects your reaction to it. When my grandmother and grandfather both died at 84 years of age, it was very sad for those of us that could not see them again in this life, but definitely not a surprise. When someone dies at an age that is considered "too young" it is a tragedy and everyone is shocked. No one sees that coming. My uncle died after years of drug use, and it seemed like a waste that he didn't clean himself up at some point before he left us.

So the condition of the person dying and our perception of how useful their lives were all help to form our reaction to death.

How often have you pondered the question of your own mortality?

What specific events brought this to your mind?

Have you come to any specific conclusions about death, such as what happens after?

Rant from a Disenfranchised Conservative

2006-05-16T16:07:00.000-07:00

This is the most telling statement made by our President recently:

"The objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders, and on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique, which is we're a land of immigrants. ... We're not going to discriminate against people," Bush said.

Sounds to me like some fine fence-riding. On one hand, we got to get tough and protect our borders, while still rewarding those who have broken our laws to come here. NOT rewarding them and punishing them and those that hire them is apparently discrimination.

The premise that, "they are already here, so we may as well give them temporary work status" doesn't play with me. I liken it to giving 13 year olds condoms because, "well, they are curious and will probably have intercourse anyway, so they may as well do it in a safe manner."

Any reasonable person would agree that statement 2 is just a result of bad parenting, so what does that say for the angle President Bush is taking?

This is a bit of a rant, and for that I apologize. I am just frustrated because I voted for George Bush both terms and overall I am not satisfied with his track record.

Here's an interesting statement I found on Yahoo from El Presidente Vicente on the matter. Naturally, he was "concerned" that Bush was militarizing the border, as if that is in no way reasonable.

Bush also assured Fox that any military support would be administrative and logistical and would come from the National Guard and not the Army, according to a news release from Fox's office.

So we are going to have, no offense to those in our National Guard, a bunch of pencil pushers sent to the border to help stem the tide of illegal immigrants? Pardon me if I am not thrilled, but insulted at this obvious political gesture.

I have also been hearing a lot of comments around the blogosphere about Conservatives that are "deserting" President Bush over just this issue and the implication is that this is somehow disloyal. Let me make myself perfectly clear in this matter: I am not blindly loyal to ANY MAN, including our President. I voted for George W. Bush because I thought HE was conservative, but I was wrong. Big time.

I am calling out anyone who would like to show me ONE piece of legislation or spending initiative put forth by our President that shows he is a conservative at heart.

Those who would like to see this whole situation in its reality, you need a Biblical world view. Not a liberal, conservative, or independent one. If you understand the Bible prophesy about Global Governance and One World Government, suddenly all of what is happening begins to make perfect sense.

Battleground God

2006-05-12T14:59:00.000-07:00

I was over at Cynthia's and took the Battleground God questionnaire. It was amusing at best due to the fact that it is based on "The god of Philosophy" (who doesn't exist). I didn't fair too well, due to the fact that my beliefs were not in line with the philosphical viewpoints that provide the premise for the test.

Below are some analysis of areas where I took some hits:

Analysis of your Direct Hits

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

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

Obviously, I was a little biased here as I have never seen evidence of the Monster of Loch Ness, but can see evidence of God by looking out a window and observing nature.

Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(from New International Version)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

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

Analysis of your Bitten Bullets

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to questions 6 and 7.

These answers generated the following response:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

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

I chose to bite the bullet rather than agree with humanist scientists grasping at evolutionary straws!

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

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

Ok, the test got me here. The whole debate about what God can't do, like sin, or violate human free will; or as the question suggests, make 1 + 1 = 72, is still a little beyond me.

Legal Drugs in Mexico

2006-05-02T17:05:00.000-07:00

According to this article on CNN's website. Mexico is a signature away from de-criminalizing several dangerous substances.

"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," according to the Senate bill, which also lays out allowable quantities for an array of other drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and amphetamines.

What is ironic is the penalties for selling these substances will remain.

It also stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs -- even small quantities -- by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

Those who understand just how corrupt the Mexican government is will not be suprised by this news, while all others should pay careful attention because this is one of the countries we are planning on "joining" to become "The New America" where all of their inherent problems become ours!

Imagine how much money this new "law" will generate for Mexico as countless American college students and drug users flood the border towns looking for a fix.

The fact that we are in bed with this country in alot of ways should alarm you.

The New America

2006-04-25T19:07:00.000-07:00

I've been doing some research on globalism and have found alarming evidence that America, in particular the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are working together to create a "New North America", a borderless continent. I found one website, "The American Resistance" that did a great job of collecting the information.

Here are a few key passages:

In March 2005, President George W. Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." This represents the official public beginning of an ongoing series of agreements and implementations aimed at combining the economies, populations and cultures of the nations of North America into a borderless “North American Free Trade Zone”.

While most Americans expect to pass on to their children a nation of law, with defined, secured borders - and a common language, the Globalist elite who are actually making the decisions concerning our future have a far different America in mind.

There is a section in the article called, "Organizations and their agendas" that contains tons of links indicating that this is no hidden secret thing but a bold plan that is being revealed right under our noses, and without our votes.

In light of this information, the illegal immigration issue that so many Americans are passionate about, me included, is just a stepping stone to a global economy that those who represent us have no intention of really dealing with. I predict we will hear a lot of empty promises this coming election about how the borders need to be closed, with no action.

He has risen!

2006-04-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

This Sunday we take time to celebrate the most significant event in world history which can be summed up in three words:

Mark 16:6
He has risen!
(from New International Version)

If this were not true, we would all surely be lost.

Please have a great Easter weekend!

Immigration "Reform"

2006-04-06T12:55:00.000-07:00

I read this article at Breitbart.com and laughed out loud at my desk.

It looks like Congress is getting close to sealing a deal on the illegal immigration problem.

Here is the gist of the new proposed "rules" for illegals already living here:

While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

Laughable. So, in essence, what we are saying is, "Okay guys, we KNOW you came here by breaking the law, but now we want to put you on the honor system, whadaya say?".

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

So if I am an illegal immigrant who has been living here for 2 weeks, I am telling the INS that I have been here 5 years, no make it 6 just so it doesn't seem like I am lying, and this way, I stay put. The whole premise is that these people of questionable scruples are suddenly going to "fess up" and not only tell us they are illegal, but exactly how long they have been here, whether it is to their advantage or not.

Standing before television cameras after an appearance Thursday in Charlotte, N.C., Bush said he was pleased that Republicans and Democrats were working together.

I am utterly disappointed in the President's treatment of this issue and it goes to show that no matter how many people in this Democracy cry out, in the end, money talks. The financial advantages of illegal immigration must outweigh our need for truly secure borders. How else would you explain this?

The Open Border Conspiracy

2006-03-30T15:20:00.000-08:00

I heard an interesting piece on talk radio the other day about immigration that directly contradicts what the MSM is putting out there. As I mentioned, it was on the radio, so I have no sources to link you to. I have started some independent research but surprisingly, am unable to find any websites dealing with the issue in this way.

The host of The McGuire Fire, Paul McGuire, asserts that the debate about closing our borders, in particular the U.S./Mexico border, is futile. Why? Because for years the U.S. Government has planned to open the borders for socio-economic reasons. Paul explains that a cheap and disposable work force benefits our economy in such a way that our leadership does not intend to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.

While I was surprised at hearing this, both because it never occurred to me, and it goes against what we keep hearing from the Left and the Right: that our open border is a major threat to our safety in light of the terrorists that can take advantage of how soft it is.

His perspective is consistent with the lack of real action from our government on this issue. We are told that the budget for the Border Patrol has increased and they have been provided with new officers, as well as new state of the art equipment and housing for detainees. But really, hasn't the number of illegals passing over our border continued to increased in spite of this?

Many are saying that the upcoming election will hinge on which party is tougher on immigration, but using this theory as a premise, I expect to hear alot of promises and no real action when it comes to really closing our borders.

I definitely want to look into this more closely, especially in light of the fact that so many on both sides of this issue are so passionate (including me). I have even emailed Mr. McGuire and asked for sources and plan to do a follow up post real soon.

Enough Said...

2006-03-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

GreyGhost, in dealing with a Troll over at his Blog, managed to sum up my thoughts nicely on the current political climate. Check the comments on the article, "Liberals Still Pushing For Change To Electoral College".

Nice going Grey!

We Need to Get Back to Conservative Values

2006-03-20T12:35:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article about helping America return to more Conservative values. This guy is trying to sell a book, but he suggests a "blueprint" of values can be created by asking 6 questions about any government action or policy under consideration. I believe these questions can just as easily serve as a litmus test for how "involved" government is in our lives socially. Here they are:

1. Is it the government’s business?
2. Does it promote self-reliance?
3. Is it responsible?
4. Does it make America more prosperous?
5. Does it make us safer?
6. Does it unify us?

I believe Liberals and Conservatives alike can agree that these questions are good ones to ask before we give the Fed the right to make policy.

I will comment this blog and list existing policies which I believe should get a resounding "NO!" to these questions.

Historicity of the New Testament

2006-03-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

Everything I believe about Jesus I have read in the Bible. This for many begs the question, “Why is the Bible a reliable source of information about this person?” My answer is that the Bible is not only a good source of information about Christ and world history at that time, but it is the best documentation we possess regarding the events of Jesus and his contemporaries.

This is quite a claim. Please continue reading and find out why I am convinced of this.

As the New Testament contains the genealogy, birth, life, subsequent death and resurrection of Christ I will focus on the NT and not the Old Testament when dealing with historicity. It should also be said that I intend to use sources of information that use historiography to establish a documents historicity. A scientific method would be inappropriate as none of the events depicted in any historical document can be proven empirically, as those events can not be recreated in a controlled environment. In my readings, I have seen those who claim that the existence of Christ is "un-scientific" which is why I made this stipulation. If you are looking for scientific proof of history, you will find none.

There are 3 basic tests for historicity:

Bibliographical: seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals (see table here). This I believe to be the most compelling evidence proving the Bible to be accurate and reliable. A comparison to Homer's Iliad shows that the manuscript reliability of the Bible is unmatched:

Homer's Iliad
Date Written: 900 B.C.
Earliest Copy: 400 B.C.
Approximate Time Between Original and Copy: 500 years
Number of Copies: 643
Accuracy of Copies: 95% (very good)

The Bible (Specifically the New Testament)
Date Written: 50-100 A.D. Initially the time between the oral and written records was thought to be 3 times this long, but later findings proved the actual amount of time to be within the 1st century A.D.
Earliest Copy: c. 130 A.D.
Approximate Time Between Original and Copy: Less than 100 years
Number of Copies: 5,600 (19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages, for a total of > 24,000 copies.)
Accuracy: 99.5% (unheard of)

Let me take a moment to explain the statistics I have covered above:

The reason we compare the date written with the earliest copy of the manuscript is that oral record, although fairly reliable during this time as there were no printing presses so it was the only method available, has been deemed by critics to be susceptible to exaggeration and rumor over the course of a few hundred years. The fact that the time span between oral and written record of the NT is less than 100 years (some believe ~80 years) is significant in that most historians believe this to be more than adequate to dismiss claims of exaggeration by the writer. This is also significant because had the writer taken liberties with the facts, he would have more than likely been met with opposition and corrected by his contemporaries.

As stated above, the manuscript evidence (MSS) of the Bible far outweighs any other document we consider to be reliable. For comparison, your average history book used in public schools has about 2 dozen manuscripts.

Internal: asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. The Bible makes this claim in many places; just to name a few: Luke 1:2, Acts 4:20, Acts 10:39, 2 Peter 1:16, Heb 2:3, 1John 1:1

External: asks whether material external to the document confirms the reliability of the document. The Bible makes dozens of references that can be used as "checkpoints" to validate it's historicity. References to significant events of the day and externally documented events such as the Roman census are examples of checkpoints. More examples of these found in the Bible can be found here

What has been your overall impression of the Bible as a historical document?

How did you come to this conclusion? I ask this because a majority of people I have come across make claims of Bible inerrancy and contradiction but have never actually picked up a Bible and read it, but are simply repeating what they have heard.

If the Bible must be accepted as historically accurate, what implications are there for world religions that differ in their treatment of the person of Jesus Christ?

What implications would this hold for you personally?

Who is Jesus?

2006-03-06T11:00:00.000-08:00

This is the first post of many that will deal specifically with the person of Jesus Christ. He came into the world about 2000 years ago, a minority born into a poor family in one of the smallest cities in the world (Nazareth). He only lived 33 years, 3 of which he actually spent in active ministry, and yet made a huge impact on the world that still creates controversy. Every religion deals with the person of Jesus in it's own way, some say he was a very moral and wise teacher, others say he was a prophet or a reincarnation. Some believe Jesus never existed at all. With all these differing opinions, someone HAS to be correct, so who is it?

Let's start the discussion with a few basic questions:

Who do you believe Jesus to be?

How did you come to this conclusion?

Based on the impact Jesus had not only on his contemporaries, but still has today, would you agree that his life and ministry are worthy of reflection?

Why is every person and religion so divided about who this person is?

Black Gold

2006-02-21T12:39:00.000-08:00

Remember in grade school when you learned about how the dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, then for one reason or another they all died, and as their bodies decomposed petroleum was formed? Hence, petroleum is considered a fossil fuel. What if I told you that the premise that petroleum being formed from organic matter near the earth's crust was a falsehood and that a newer, more scientific theory exists that proves oil is not a fossil fuel at all but a natural bi-product of a natural process much deeper in the earth?

You would probably say, "Who cares?", but here is the relevance. This new theory, called the Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation, not only disproves the original "fossil fuel" theory, but it proves that petroleum is not a limited resource after all. This is pretty controversial considering the current assumption that we are "dangerously close" to running out of oil.

This theory was developed by Russian-Ukrainian scientists and has even been used to discover oil reserves in the former U.S.S.R. A few facts about the theory:

Organic material cannot survive depths of over 18,000 feet while oil has been discovered using the Abiotic Theory at over 36,000 feet.

It is NOT new, but was brought to light by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951 and has undergone extensive development and refinement since then.

It is not untested or based solely on speculation but in fact was severely challenged by geologists at the time that held to the more traditional fossil fuel theory. The Abiotic Theory has stood the test of intense debate and scrutiny, unlike the rococo (fossil fuel) theory.

The original theory that oil can be formed near the earth's crust by extreme pressure and heat violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Those are just a few facts, the full article where I got this data can be found here and a shorter synopsis of the basics of the theory is here.

What I am interested in regarding this new theory is why is it not generally known that the fossil fuel theory has been debunked? Isn't this the "good news" we have all been waiting for? In who's best interest (and the answer to this is painfully obvious) is it to continue to pass on the lie that we are running out of oil? Maybe the oil companies? What if I told you that not only have oil reserves not been steadily depleting, but they have increased? There is proof that oil reserves that were once dry have been revisited because the oil has been replenished. The basics of supply and demand tell us that if the demand for a resource is greater than the available supply, then it comes at a premium. If we suddenly discover that oil is in fact a renewable resource, then we are suddenly no longer at the mercy of the oil companies and they will be forced to lower the price per barrel. As long as this fear exists they can charge us whatever they want.

Interesting that, although everyone agrees that the U.S. needs to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we don't seem to be doing much to accomplish that. Why are we not drilling in Alaska? Environmentalists say that we will ruin a national treasure but my understanding is that the area in ANWAR that is drillable compared to the whole is like putting a postage stamp on a football field so it would certainly not taint the landscape as much as some would have us believe.

The reality is that the oil companies have undergone a multi-million dollar campaign to make sure we all believe we are running out. Ironically, they have found an unexpected ally in their campaign of misinformation: environmentalist groups. Although they seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, it turns out they are fighting the same fight.

To get the discussion going, here are a few questions:

While we should be pursuing alternative fuels, like hydrogen, our dependence on oil isn't going away any time soon. Shouldn't we be using the Abiotic Theory to find oil here in the U.S. to lessen our dependence on Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia for oil?

Are the oil companies so powerful that even the government is helping to perpetrate the falsehood that we are running out of oil?

There is some debate about whether ANWAR will provide enough oil to help solve this problem of foreign oil dependency. Shouldn't we at least take a look and find out if the amount of oil there is worth the trouble?

Tisk, tisk

2006-02-20T09:52:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted in a bit due to the fact I have been doing a little research for my next post, which will hopefully be published in a day or two.

I do feel compelled to take a moment to pimp slap a certain Mr. Ricki Williams for putting his career in peril behind smoking marijuana. Can you say bad career choice? I know he is some kinda Rasta and what not, but this is plain foolishness.

Emotionally he has always struck me as a little troubled, but I hope he can get it together, he has talent.

Relative Truth?

2006-02-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

I was having a discussion with Cynthia about the Muslim reaction to the cartoon depicting Mohammed in a negative light (see previous post) and she brought up a point that I think would be interesting to tackle.

There are some, and I am not prepared to give any specific percentage of the population but suffice it to say I have heard this philosophy a lot, that EVERYTHING is relative. I will agree that in alot of instances, this is true; relative to Bill Gates, I'm broke, but relative to someone living in poverty, I'm suddenly doing pretty well. This logic can be applied to alot of things; beauty (it IS in the eye of the beholder, right?), intelligence, physical fitness, etc. Notice these things are all comparative, this person is more intelligent than that, or that person is more beautiful than this one. All are very subjective and are determined largely by the experience and beliefs of the person observing. I think Donald Trump is loaded, while Bill Gates could buy and sell him.

When this no longer holds true for me is when you apply this same rule to things that are completely objective and not subject to interpretation. Let me give a basic analogy that I hope will make my point:

My friend and I are standing at the curb when a shiny red Ferrari pulls up. We are both equally impressed, but it just so happens that my friend is color blind, so to him the car is blue. Now, the actual color of the car is red and the truth of this fact is not subject to interpretation. It is objectively true that the Ferrari is red, although, subjectively (to my color blind friend) it is some other color.

I think it is dangerous to apply the philosophy of relativity to everything because suddenly we live in a world where nothing is right, wrong, true, or false, because our own thinking determines which way is correct. I believe that truth is one thing which cannot be left to interpretation.

Do you believe truth is relative?

Can you provide a real life example where this is true?

If it is determined that truth is indeed not relative, what does this say about morality?

Choose Your Battles

2006-02-03T10:58:00.000-08:00

This blog by Boortz was brought to my attention by Grouchy Old Cripple and I think it summarizes nicely my thoughts on the Muslim communities over the top response to this issue. Does the phrase, "Choose your battles wisely" mean anything to them?

CD Mix Challenge

2006-02-01T12:27:00.000-08:00

1) A favorite political track.
The song that jumps into my head whenever I think of politically charged music is Fight the Power - Public Enemy

2) One of those tracks that make you dance on the dancefloor no matter what.
Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough - Do I need to tell you?

3) The song you’d use to tell someone you love them.
Shining Star - The Manhattans; my wife and I consider this to be "our song".

4) A song that has made you sit down and analyze it’s lyrics.
This Woman's Work - Maxwell

5) A song that you like, that a two year old would like as well.
Shackles - Mary Mary

6) A song that gives you an energy boost.
Step Into A World (Rapture's Delight) - KRS One

7) A song that you and your grandparents (would probably) like.
Blue Train - John Coltrane

8) A song that you really liked when you were 14-16, and still really like now.
Telephone Man - New Edition, anything by them brings back fond memories of my teen years.

9) A sad song that would be in the soundtrack of the movie about your life.
Little Wing - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble

10) A peppy song that would start the opening credits of the movie about your life.
The Glow of Love - Luther Vandross

11) A good song from a genre of music that no one would guess that you liked.
Sweet Home Alabama - Lynyrd Skynyrd

12) A song that you think should have been playing when you were born.
Fantasy - Earth Wind & Fire, one I could play over and over and never grow weary!

13) A favorite artist duo collaboration.
You're All I Need To Get By - Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrel; I thought Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell were fantastic together.

14) A favorite song that you completely disagree with (politically, morally,
commonsenically, religiously etc.)
Grand Verbalizer - X-Clan, Vanglorious! This is protected by the red, the black, and the green with a KEY! SISSYYY!

15) The song that you like despite the fact your IQ level drops several points
every time you listen to it.
Where I'm From (Don't Fight The Clean Mix II) - Passion

16) Your smooth song, for relaxing.
Lifetime - Maxwell

17) A song you would send to someone you hate or are mad at.
Ain't No Future in Yo' Frontin' - MC Breed

18) A favorite track from an outfit considered a “super-group.”
Brick House - The Commodores

19) A song that makes you reminsce about good times with a family member.
Dear Mama - Tupac, always makes me remember growing up with my moms (BTW, she was NEVER a crack fiend)

20) Your favorite song at this moment in time
Fast Lane - Bilal, I know, it's not brand new, but I never get tired of it.

Whew! That was hard work! It did take me down memory lane alot (good and bad memories), thanks to Nikki for bringing King's list to my attention!

The Punishment Should Fit the Crime

2006-01-31T13:19:00.000-08:00

Here in California, there is alot of attention being directed at the issue of child exploitation; specifically, Jessica's Law which would make the laws in California more strict towards those who choose to abuse children sexually. Check out the Current Law vs. Jessica's Law Fact Sheet on the website above for a good synopsis of what the new law will do to change existing laws already in place.

What surprises me is that some legislators are opposed to tougher laws against child molesters for varying reasons, none of which I think are valid:

1. It would cost too much administratively
Can anyone put a price on keeping children safe from sex offenders, most of whom are repeat offenders with a high likelihood of striking again?

2. It would force sex offenders to move, this is deemed "unfair" by some.
If you weigh the potential "inconvenience" of relocating to a neighborhood farther from schools and parks to the lifetime of damage that is inflicted on children by these crimes, I think it is more than reasonable. In my opinion, these people are lucky to be free at all and should be willing to put up with a little hardship in light of what they have done.

3. Combined with California's current "3 strikes" law, would put more "lifers" away, costing California tax payers more over time.
And? I pay taxes for alot of things I do not agree with, so paying to keep these people behind bars wouldn't bother me in the least.

These are just a few of the "reasons" cited by law makers as to why they think stricter legislation is wrong for California.

California law makers have attempted to pass alot of bills that would have made it harder for sex offenders to re-offend; disappointingly, alot of the measures failed by partisan votes of California's Democrat heavy legislature. The fact that our children's safety is being treated as a partisan issue is inexcusable. Californians for stricter laws are scrambling to get enough signatures to put this measure on November's ballot because attempts to pass it legislatively have failed.

It boggles me that this is even a debate. If an adult, male or female, chooses to abuse a minor sexually, they should pay the price. The popular viewpoint is that sex offenders can never be cured, while there are experts that say recidivism among sex offenders is similar or less than that of other types of crimes.

If you ask me, either way makes no difference because this crime is like no other in that it is sexual in nature and involves a child. One California legislator, Mark Leno, has suggested that the possession of child pornography be treated the same as drug possession, only possessing a certain amount should be considered a felony and should otherwise be treated as a misdemeanor. Again, this flies in the face of logic as a child was not directly harmed in the creation of a drug like meth or crack cocaine. In order to produce child pornography a child is damaged so these are not synonymous.

James Manning over at Peace On That will rib me for using this format, but I am interested to know how you all would approach this issue:

1. If your state doesn't already have strict laws against sex offenses, would you use your vote to support stricter legislation, no matter what the cost?

2. Should we be sympathetic to those involved with these types of crimes because they are "sick" and have difficulty controlling their urges?

3. Do crimes involving sex and/or children deserve to be treated differently legislatively than other felonies, like drug possession or assault?

The End of an Era

2006-01-27T09:28:00.000-08:00

Last week we lost one of the great ones, Wilson Pickett (March 18, 1941 – January 19, 2006), and not ONE blogger (at least the ones I read) mentioned it! I am among those who are moved by his raw vocal style and great songs. Try to find someone who HAS NOT heard "Mustang Sally" or "The Midnight Hour". Not to mention the musicians he has influenced to make more great music, or at least a good cover of one of his hits. He made music from 1959 to 1972 that lives on in the hearts and minds of many.

My personal favorite is "A Man and a Half". Any who own any of Mr. Wilson's cuts, may I suggest you play some of his stuff as a tribute.

Guess What Kind of Car I am!

2006-01-26T11:28:00.000-08:00

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Cowboys and Girls

2006-01-25T09:43:00.000-08:00

Our first child is a girl, Ninah, and she is almost one year old. I have to admit when we found out she was coming I was a little dissappointed; I think every man wants a "little man" around the house that he can teach to play baseball, play army men, etc. Before Ninah was born, a good friend who has a daughter himself told me, "Having a girl will make a man of you." I wasn't sure what he meant, but he is rarely wrong.

The day she came into our world, I think it hit me why a little girl will make you a better man. What us guys are missing, which is also why we love women so much, are traits that are inherent in females. They love with their hearts, not their minds; are more sensitive towards others; tender-hearted and so many other things that I lack. Being raised by a single mother helped me understand women a bit. Getting married and being with my woman 24/7 (we didn't move in together until after marriage, old school style baby!) certainly helped me be more sensitive, but having a little woman to take care of takes the cake!

Every thing I do must be done gently so that she grows up to be a little lady. I am quicker with words to correct her and slower to anger. It has made me softer, more gentle and I think Ninah's little brother who is coming soon will benefit from Daddy having a girl first. I will never know of course, but I think it would be less likely that I would learn these things from a little baby boy. We males have a tendency to assume that making their boys "tough" means being harsh, more rough. What I have discovered through my little baby girl is that the key to raising a child who is ready for the world (remember that group? "Oh Sheila...") is one thing: Confidence. They have to be confident in themselves. Trying to make them "not sissies" by being rough and discouraging behaviors we may think are not manly, like hugging and kissing and being emotional only causes them to miss out on the love and affection they are hard wired to crave from their parents, daddy included.

When kids enter the world missing the affection and love of their fathers they do their darndest to replace that love with sex, drugs, food, and any other thing that gratifies, if only temporarily. Most fathers would not see themselves as nurturers, and indeed it does not come as easily to us as women, but we must try.

So my little boy is getting lots of love and hugs and kisses from me, followed by toy trucks, plastic guns, and little army men.

Hip Pop

2006-01-23T17:48:00.000-08:00

This is a rant I have had stored up in my mind for a long time and now I have the perfect forum to let it out!

I can not stand the direction that rap music has taken over the last decade. Way back when, it was all about who was the better MC, who had the best flow. Now, anybody can get a record deal! I would be suprised if 20% of today's most popular MCs could could even hold their own in a freestyle contest!

There was a period of time when rap music was gaining popularity and going from underground to the top 10 and my reaction was, "Good, it's about time people started paying attention!". Little did I know that mainstreaming this music genre would ultimately destroy it.

Way back, rap lyrics were about social issues, politics, and MC battles; now it's all about platinum this, 24" that, big mansion over there, this kind of car... what doesn't make sense to me is even the first-timers who are new to the game are talking this mess; how did you get so rich if you JUST GOT STARTED? I guess I could wager a guess, but that's beside the point.

You could not survive in the 80's and early 90's by acting just like the next guy and having no talent, you would get eaten alive, no one would respect you or buy your album!

I stick to the rap I know and love: Rakim (best MC ever), KRS One, Kurtis Blow, Whoudini (oh, I will blast "Haunted House of Rap" out of my car window), Big Daddy Kane, Tribe Called Quest... you know, REAL MCs who could write lyrics that make you nod your head.

Alot of genres of music have survived the ages and managed not to look stupid in the process: Rock, Jazz, Country, so why do I have to go BACK to listening to underground rap music to be moved?

Tragically Hip

2006-01-23T13:56:00.000-08:00

Picture this: A 31 year old white male driving through the neighborhood with rap music blasting from his vehicle. What comes to mind? Apparently what comes to some people's minds is that the situation is comical because I actually get laughed at sometimes just trying to enjoy my music of choice in the privacy of my car.

Mostly it is high school age kids who are more hip to current trends in music, fashion, etc, who think I am some aging white dude holding on to his youth for dear life. Maybe a mid-life crisis?

It is a little embarassing but not enough to make me change what I am listening to, after all, I like it and am not trying to make an impression.

In the early 80's, when rap music was beginning to gain popularity but was still far from mainstream, is when I was indoctrinated into the genre. I grew up in a racially diverse neighborhood so I was exposed to alot of rap like, RUN-DMC, The Fat Boys, LL Cool J, The Sugar Hill Gang (you know the cut), which I played over and over again until I had the words committed to memory. In my circle of friends, these were the songs it was "cool" to know.

Most of what you will hear coming out of my car stereo is rap music of the 80's and 90's because as far as I am concerned, rap music has died, save a few exceptions of real MC's that are staying connected and not just trying to buy more stuff so they can rap about it.

I guess it is just my burden to bear that folks will think I am pitiful for listening to what I do. I have also been jabbed for being an "aging hipster" because I wear jeans and sneakers more often than not. Is there some unwritten rule that as you age you HAVE to listen to classical music (maybe country?) and wear Khakis, dress shoes, and polo shirts? This just would not be me.

What the BLOG?

2005-12-22T13:10:00.000-08:00

I am definitely new to the whole blog thing and am mainly interested in it because I have little opportunity to just sit with friends and discuss/debate real issues relating to religion and politics both because I have less time than I would like and most people don't relish the idea of getting together with their friends and really hashing out the issues, especially in a debate format as most people have a hard time differentiating between a debate and just fighting because you disagree. I happen to love debating, not that I am necessarily very good at it, but because I like to challenge my opinions and beliefs; I think if we feel passionate about anything, it serves us well to challenge ourselves to figure out what we believe and more importantly, why.

Some of what we believe is based on misinformation or just a lack of good facts as a foundation, so our opinions and beliefs are less than objective. To me, this is where a good debate can be useful as two (or more) people share facts, opinions, and beliefs about a particular subject, each involved is able to glean from the experience of others, and all are edified.

My limited experience in the "blogosphere" has so far been dissappointing to some degree, mostly because it has been less a constructive sharing of ideas, and more headhunting to see who you can prove is wrong, or at least more wrong than you. Arrogance, condescension, and exclusivism abound as each blogger, or group of bloggers loyal to one another, tries to prove themselves intellectually and informationally superior to the next.

Is this really the point? Each time a present my side of an issue I am immediately pounced upon by ravenous bloggers who do not agree with me and therefore I am labeled "idiot" or "moron" or I am just generally condescended to as someone "less enlightened".

Also interesting is when an obviously intelligent individual, well versed on current events, presents their argument somewhat intelligently but, in my opinion, ruins there point because they feel compelled to use foul language and personal insults to communicate their argument. To me this is a shame because I have always associated the use of slang and foul language with an inability to effectively communicate.

Maybe I am just being WAY too idealistic, but hey, I am new to this so that could change. At any rate, I plan to continue perusing the seemingly endless blog sites searching for knowledge and ideally leave those who I come into contact with better than when I found them. Hopefully, any who care to return here in the next few months will find me battle-weary but still positive.

I guess only time will tell.

Government: Social Cure-All?

2005-12-21T12:00:00.000-08:00

Why is it that, after seeing what a terrible job Federal and State gov has done with things like education, Social Security and Medicare, some think we should now also give them the job of running healthcare? It boggles me that every time there is a societal need that we are of the mindset that it is the Governments job to take care of it.

A little history. The U.S. government was established to do two things:

1. Protect our freedom from oppression by those more powerful than us, such as what is happening in the Middles East where people are forced, under penalty, to follow some leader, religion, or culture.
(Incidentally, for those of you who hate guns, this can ONLY be accomplished through force, not aggressive force, but by being strong enough militarily so that no one tries to attack us and if they do to punish them for it.)

2. Preserve justice.

At some point, the Fed became our "Mother" and the cure for all social ills. It just so happens that every time they try to do something outside of those two things listed above, they do a terrible job. This is because the government is trying to do things it was never designed to do.
What happened?