Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

• His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
• His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
• His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
• His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
• His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
• His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
• His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

My Beloved Son: A Christmas Drama

This coming Sunday, December 20, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be presenting a Christmas Drama titled My Beloved Son. This program will present the story of Christmas from the viewpoint of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. This drama will be presented at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, and 6:30 pm.

You are all invited to attend, and we would look forward to having you visit with us for this presentation of My Beloved Son. If you need directions, you can click here. I look forward to seeing you there.

Will Jon and Kate just go away?

"They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had."

I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.

Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.

I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.

What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.

Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.

Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?

Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.

And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.

So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.

Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."

It's Time To Get Rid of Salary Caps in Sports

Even before the Yankees won their 27th World Series a few weeks ago, the cries were coming out from all corners of the U.S. that the Yankees bought their way to another World Series title. Apparently, money buys championships, talent will not win them for you.

I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.

Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.

But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.

I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).

Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.

This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.

And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.

And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.

The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.

Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.

One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.

It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.

And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?

The Manifestation of Evil

Last Thursday, we were reminded again that an ideology exists in this world that teaches people to hate someone so much that it drives them to the kill others. Because of one person's hatred for Americans, thirteen people were gunned down and killed, with many more wounded. Because of one person's hatred, many families are now left longing for loved ones, taken mercilessly and prematurely from them. Because of one person's hatred, there are children without fathers or mothers, parents without daughters or sons, husbands and wives without spouses.

Of course, the shooter was shot, but he still lives. Part of me wishes that the shot that wounded him would have taken his life. It serves him right to have his life taken for what he did. Why does this man, full of rage and hate, get to live, while innocent people have to die because of his hatred? Why do things happen this way? It's only right for him to die for this. But vengeance is not ours to give. Vengeance ultimately belongs to God. But the government is able to punish him for what he did, and his punishment should be to the fullest extent of the law.

In looking at all of this, from a distance, I see a man full of rage and hatred. But I must ask why he is this way. What is it about his beliefs that drove him to commit such heinous acts? How could one person reach this far into the depths of depravity to hate people to this extent? Did his religion play a part in this act? Were there any indications that he was going to act in this extreme way? Why was nothing done to stop him?

When an abortion provider was shot and killed a few months ago, he was killed by someone full of hate and rage. But the left, and the media, declared that this man was a right-wing religious person, and they attempted to show some sort of moral equivalency between conservatives and this nut job. Yet, when a Muslim kills others around him, in the name of Allah, we are not supposed to question the motives and beliefs of their religion? This is considered bigoted?

We have seen many incidents of terrorism over the last 15 years, committed in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam, and we should not question the religion and what they are teaching? We are not supposed to profile, so as not to upset people of the Muslim religion? The last time I checked, it was not Americans, or Chinese, or Africans, or Europeans that committed these acts. It was Muslims. It was their extreme beliefs that drove them to commit these acts.

The left, and the media, would have us believe that we caused these terrorist acts because of something that we did. Somehow, maybe we mistreated them or hindered them in some way, thus driving them to commit acts of terrorism. Maybe they are George Bush's fault (after all, isn't he the cause of everything wrong in this world today?). However, let us remember that they attacked us during the Clinton Administration. They continue to attack us during the Obama Administration, even though everybody is supposed to worship and adore the current President. These people need to realize that this has nothing to do with who is in office. Terrorists don't care. They hate us because of who we are, not who our President is. It has everything to do with their hatred for anything that does not agree with their religion. This is what the Koran teaches.

We do, however, need to be careful, not to lump all Muslims into this extremist group. I do not believe that they all hold these views. In fact, I believe it is the minority of them that hold to these extremist views. But we cannot be too vigilant in guarding against these kind of attacks in the future. Rather than being mad at us, the law-abiding Muslims ought to direct their anger to the extremists of their religion who hold to these views and seek to destroy those who do not agree.

We should not take it on ourselves to combat terrorism by ourselves. If we go out and kill someone for the cause of ridding the world of terrorists and in the name of vigilante justice, then we are no better than they are. Our government exists to fight terrorism. Our military is fighting terrorists and extremists overseas so we do not need to fear them here.

And we can help them. Some may choose to volunteer for military service. Some may work for companies that act as support for the military. We may choose to donate to military causes or help with families whose loved ones are overseas serving our country. But one thing we can all do is pray for them. They are fighting a dangerous battle so that we do not have to face the enemy here. They deserve our respect. They deserve the honor due to them. They deserve our thanks. And they definitely deserve and merit our prayers. Let us not forget them.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

Over the past week or so, much has been made of a group of buyers making a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. The prominent name in this group is Rush Limbaugh. And now, the liberals are having a field day trying to discredit Rush and have the deal thrown out, even though there is no deal on the table at this time.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out and called Rush a racist, stating that he has no business being an owner in the NFL, especially since most of the players are black. They cite no evidence of racism. Rather, they only make a proclamation, knowing that just being called a racist is enough to harm anyone's reputation beyond imagination. I find this to be very ironic, coming from 2 of the most race-driven men in America today. These guys are an embarrassment to the human race.

Now, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts has come out against any Limbaugh ownership in the NFL. Why? I thought he ran a classy organization. I am not sure what kind of businessman makes this kind of decision based on no facts at all. The former coach of the Colts, Tony Dungy, has been on Rush's radio program to discuss the book that he wrote. This doesn't sound like a racist action to me. It does not sound divisive to me.

There are players out there who said that they would not play for a team owned by Limbaugh (I heard Chad Ochocinco say this, as if Rush would want this slacker on his team anyway). Well, good for them. I am sure that there are a lot of other players that would have no problem playing for Rush. He would have no problem getting good players on his team.

If Rush was a racist, why would he have Dungy on his program? Why would his chief call screener be black? Why would he even be interested in owning an NFL team, if the majority of players are black?

The man has a love for the NFL, as is quite apparent when you listen to his show. He is a Steelers fan, although I can't figure out why (Rooney is big-time Democrat who is now ambassador to Ireland, thanks to the President). And let's not forget the so-called Rooney rule, which wreaks of racism (as it does not guarantee that a job will go to the most qualified individual and it assumes that minorities cannot compete on a level playing field).

If Rush owned an NFL team, it would not be for the money that he would stand to make from it. It would be due to the fact that he likes football. He would buy a team because he wanted to win.

This whole thing has nothing to do with racism. The same people that are out there decrying divisiveness and discrimination now find themselves doing those exact same things in opposition to Limbaugh. Hypocrisy? You bet.

And where is the media? Are they reporting the facts? No, they are not. Rather, they are parroting the quotes that are attributed to Rush, but have been shown to be fabricated or taken extremely out of context.

As far as I am concerned, I think this would be good for the Rams and the NFL. Commsissioner Goodell - Don't be a coward and cave in to the hate-mongers. Don't buy into this. Prove to everyone that you have the moral courage to stand up to these haters and that you won't be bullied or strong-armed to make a bone-headed move for you and the league.

Also, the St. Louis Rams are a company. They should be able to sell to whoever they want. the league should have no say in this whatsoever. But since the NFL has a salary cap and revenue sharing, full-fledged socialism within the league is on its way. The Rams are not owned by the NFL or the other 31 owners, so the team is not theirs to sell.

When does education become indoctrination?

Over the past 20-30 years, we have had our attention drawn to many instances of indoctrination in our school systems across this country. Rather than teaching our children how to think, our public education system has decided that they need to teach our children what to think. This has caused many people to choose alternative methods for their childrens' schooling, whether it be private school, home school, or charter school.

We used to send kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those things don't matter now, because schools will automatically pass the students now. We now have teachers preaching ideologies in class. They are no longer teaching the basics that we send our kids to school to learn.

The latest example of this indoctrination comes from the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. This event reportedly happened towards the end of the 2008-09 school year. The children sang a song about President Obama, praising him for what he is doing to build up the American economy. In excerpts from the article:

• The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.
• The song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
• Among other lyrics, touting a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."

I understand the need to teach children to respect authority figures, including the President of the United States, regardless of whether or not you voted for him. However, when a school teaches your children a song about the man and has them sing it in front of others (while recording it for an eventual post on YouTube), then the school has gone beyond education. This is quite simply indoctrination. All this has done is teach the kids to basically worship the President. Apparently, he can do no wrong.

Let's ignore the fact that if the school did this for a Republican, the outcry would be enormous. Lets throw out the fact that many teachers in the public school system are liberal. These facts are quite obvious, so we do not need to touch on them.

In elementary school, children are easily led one way or another. The ability to think in such a critical way has not completely developed, although it is a work in progress. At this level, the parents should be the ones to help the child develop political ideologies, not the schools. In many cases, the schools are doing this in opposition to what the parents are teaching their children. Did the school try to notify parents that they were going to do this? What was the goal of this exercise?

Now, what would have happened if the school had asked the children to learn a song about Jesus and sing it in front of the school? I think we all know the answer to that.

Race and America

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.

But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?

To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.

It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.

But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.

The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.

Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.

Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.

And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.

The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.

During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.

Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.

Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.

Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.

I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.

9/11/09 - 8 Years Later

There have been instances over the last several decades that we can say were momentous occasions where we make mental notes of our location and situation at the time history was being made. Many people remember where they were when hearing that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Or where they were when President Kennedy was shot. Or where they were when they found out Elvis died. Or when John Lennon died. Or where they were when man landed on the moon, and then stepped foot on the lunar surface. Or where they were when they heard of the Space Shuttle Challenger blowing up after liftoff. Not that all of these moments can be considered momentous occasions in the life of mankind, but we remember them and the affect that they have on our lives.

I am too young to remember MLK Jr. or JFK being shot. Nor can I remember man landing on the moon, as I was not yet here on this earth. The deaths of Elvis and Lennon happened when I was young, and even looking back on them now, I do not see significance in them. I remember the Challenger blowing up. We did not have school that day due to snow, but I did not necessarily understand if this had any effect on me, or if it was just another news story.

There is one significant event in history, though, that sticks out in my mind. That is what happened on the morning of 9/11/01. I remember that work was really slow at that point, and we had mandatory furloughs that we were taking. I just happened to be off that week. I was sleeping in that day (my wife and I only had 1 child at that point, so it was easy to keep quiet in the house). When I woke up, I got on the phone and made a call to a credit card company that I had an ongoing dispute with. While I was on hold, instead of hearing the normal elevator music, I heard news. It sounded like NBC. They were talking about the World Trade Centers falling down.

I quickly turned on the television to see what was going on, and I tuned in to see the aftermath of the 2nd tower falling. I had to ask myself what was happening. Is this real? Or is it just a really bad dream? I asked my wife why she did not wake me up. Her answer was that I needed the extra sleep and she did not want to disturb me. While I appreciated the sentiment, I thought that this was worthy enough to wake me up.

Then there was news that a plane had flown into the Pentagon. Not too much later, we heard about a plane that crash landed in western Pennsylvania. We all wondered what was happening. Are we under attack? Was anything else going to be targeted that day? Who would do something this heinous and despicable? What had these Americans done to be targets of such actions?

While there was a very small minority of people at that time who came out and said that America deserved this (and were possibly even involved in this), the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that these actions were unprovoked and that whoever committed these acts must be found and brought to justice. These attacks were not against any one man or any one belief. They were attacks on the United States of America. They were cowardly attacks on innocent Americans who were going about the course of their daily lives. There was a tremendous unity of mind amongst almost all Americans that we needed to put political differences aside in order to fight a common enemy.

In the coming days and weeks we found out that these were attacks brought on by Al Qaida, which had funding and support from Osama Bin laden. The questions then came about what we can do to keep this from helping again. What steps can we take in order to keep people from perpetuating this same kind of cowardly attack on the American people again? What is the best way to keep Americans safe, especially on their own soil?

People had differing views on what is the best way to keep Americans safe, but the debate was vigorous, and the debate was good. Our government officials knew that if America could not be safe, then it would only be a matter of time before America was no longer free.

Over time, as the debate continued, fringe groups started to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind's of some Americans. How could the Bush Administration not have known that this was going to happen? Perhaps they were involved. Perhaps they were privy to the plan and decided to do nothing about it. Maybe they planted explosives in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to bring them down.

These ideas are preposterous. However, the longer they perpetuated these ideas, the more people started buying into these ideas. And over time, this idea that it was an 'inside job' was grown, maybe not to a majority of the American minds, but it still festers out there.

So, where are we now? How do we view the events that happened eight years ago? How do we honor the people who gave their lives on that day so that others could live? What are we doing so that these types events do not happen to us again?

First, we were attacked by Muslim extremists. We were not attacked by the Muslim religion. Rather, we were attacked by extremists who are members of that religion. It is a religion that clearly allows for this type of extremism and teaches that these actions will be rewarded in the afterlife. Today, however, by saying that these attacks were perpetuated by Muslim extremists, we are now said to be spreading hate against this 'great' religion. Well, the facts are the facts. We cannot change who attacked us. We cannot change or ignore who they were.

Second, they did not attack us because President Bush was the President. Nor did they attack the World Trade Centers in 1993 or the USS Cole because Bill Clinton was President. They attacked us because of who we were. They attacked us because we are Americans. They attacked us because we have freedom. They attacked us because we were free to worship however we please. They attacked us because they hated us for simply being Americans.

Third, we now have an administration that does not want to call this what it was: an act of terrorism. We have an administration that does not want to call our battle against these extremists a war on terror. They want to soften the language so as to show some goodwill to these extremists, as though this will help them understand that what they did was wrong. We have an administration that wants the American people to think that the real enemies are the conservatives in Congress, the insurance companies, talk radio, and Fox News. We have an administration that is more concerned about the global warming myth than they are about terrorists who are bent on destroying America. We have an administration the believes that America is the enemy, not the terrorists.

Fourth, we have lost our focus. Understandably, as we become more removed from an historic event, that event does not take the prominence that it once did. The administration is now touting 9/11 as a National Day of Service. Excuse me, but what in the world does this have to do with remembering what happened on that dreadful day? Why is the President trying to divert attention from what happened that day? I have nothing against service to others, but why choose 9/11 for this? The goal of this, in my opinion, is to remove the focus on fighting terrorists and the ideology that fuels them.

Fifth, the liberals in America are secular-progressive in their beliefs. They do not necessarily view things as right and wrong. Actions are relative in their minds. Many liberals view that what these terrorists did was justified because of America's greatness on the world scene and because of our support for the nation of Israel. They have tried to remove God from the public square and from any and all public discourse. They teach that we should be committed to the environment and community service, above all else. They teach that the government is the answer to all of our problems. In their minds, God is a figment of the imagination. Religion fills us with a false hope. Trust man, not God.

I am not saying that we should live our lives in continual fear of possible terrorism. We should continue with our lives as we always have done. However, we should be vigilant. We should be ready to stand up for America, to be proud of it, to proclaim to the world that America will not be beaten down by terrorists. We should be proud to live in the greatest country on earth, not ashamed of it. While we may not like our elected representatives and officials, we ought to be proud that we live in a country where we are free to vote for whoever we wish to vote for, without fear of intimidation and reprisal.

And on this 8th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln when he spoke at Gettysburg:

"...we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

We should pray for other's salvation, not for their damnation

I came across a news article online yesterday that really bugged me. It concerns a Pastor by the name of Steven Anderson. He pastors the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.

Recently, he preached a message titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." He told the congregation that he prays for the death of the President, and he encourages the congregants to do likewise. He would like for the President to be stricken with brain cancer and die in a fashion similar to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Anderson does say, however, that he does not condone killing. I am not sure how he can say that, though, as he prays for the President to die and go to hell.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that I do not approve of the way the President is leading our country, nor do I approve of his policies. However, to disagree with another person, including the President, is fine. This is one of the hallmarks of democracy - that we have the freedom to disagree with the President without fear of reprisal or retribution. I do not wish ill-will, pain, injury, or death on the President. I would like to see someone different in that office, but this change should come through the electoral process and not through imprecatory prayers.

First, a pastor has no business preaching messages such as this. The pulpit is a place to preach the Bible, not a place to make political statements. The pulpit is place where the Bible is preached to show us how to live. The pulpit is a place to preach messages based on Biblical principles, not messages based on one's personal, earthly feelings.

Second, messages preached in churches should be based on the Bible. How many Biblical principles is this man breaching by preaching in this manner? I am sure that there are many more, but here is a small list that I came up with.

1. Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. This passage tells us that God is in control. He knows what He is doing.
2. II Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is telling us here that He wants all to be saved from eternity in hell to spend eternity with Him in heaven. Not everyone will get saved, but that is the goal that we are to strive for. So to pray for someone to die and go to hell is in direct violation of Scripture.
3. Romans 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Again, God is in control and He has set the earthly government in place. As long as they are not asking us to do anything against God, we are to be subject to them.
4. I John 2:10-11 - He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. I think this one pretty much speaks for itself.
5. I John 3:15 - Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Can it get any more clear than this?

Unfortunately, this preacher does more to harm the cause of Christ than he does to help it out. It is people like this that hurt the witnessing opportunities of Christians. How is preaching this sort of message any different than preaching that sexual promiscuity is OK? How is it any different than preaching that stealing is permitted? or murder? or any other sin?

This man claims to be a Pastor. He is a leader, a shepherd. He should know these Bible passages. He should know that we are to pray for our leaders, that God would give them wisdom on how to lead this country, how to make wise decisions. He should know that anyone can be saved, regardless of the life they currently live.

While I was in college at Bob Jones University, Dr. Bob Jones III has a recurring statement in chapel to remind us of the plight of mankind should they choose not to accept Christ - "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." Someone dying and going to an eternity in hell is not something that should be cheered. This is something that we must address with others, regardless of who they are, so that they do not face a God-less eternity.

We should approach our elections seriously. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity to vote. Regardless of the outcome, we are to pray for those who are elected, whether or not we voted for them or agree with them. We are commanded to do this. They need our prayers. And while you are praying for them, remember to pray for their salvation. You never know what events may transpire that can lead to someone getting saved.

Let's stop blaming President Bush

Thanks to the ongoing debate over health care, the American people are starting to become more aware of the way our government is spending our money. The American people are also aware of the fact that it is indeed their own money that is being spent, and they are becoming less content with that overspending each and every day, as they should be.

Well, the hardcore liberals are now doing what they do best: they are deflecting the blame to the previous President and taking no responsibility for their own actions. After all, it is much easier to deflect the blame on someone else than it is to actually take responsibility for one's own actions. Thankfully, there are not as many buying into this idea as before.

First, let me say that I am a supporter of former President George W. Bush. He did his best to protect this country from those who were bent on destroying it. As commander-in-chief, he took that responsibility seriously, and I am thankful for that. However, in his second term, along with a Republican-led Congress, he supported spending programs that were contrary to conservative principles and led us into a lot of debt. (Let's be clear: It is Congress that writes the checks. The President only signs the bills. However, President Bush did not veto these spending plans, which thus shows no disagreement with the bills he was signing.)

Many Bush supporters (and especially conservatives) were (and still are) unhappy about the out-of-control spending that took place during that second term. Many conservatives spoke out about it then, and they continue to speak out about it, so there is not hypocrisy happening. The Democrats, for the most part, were partakers in the spending under President Bush, but they separated themselves from it for electoral purposes only. They are the hypocrites in all of this.

And while the spending spree in the last few years of the Bush Administration was unwise and financially reckless, it pales in comparison to the spending that the Obama Administration is now partaking in. It is President Obama's contention that this spending is necessary to get us out of a recession. He believes that the government needs to spend this money in order to dig our country out of a financial hole that we now find ourselves. And, somehow, it is all President Bush's fault.

Blaming President Bush for anything has been commonplace for at least the last 8 years. It is almost comical the lengths that people go to in order to blame Bush. But why are they doing it?

First, I believe they are blaming President Bush in order to take attention off of the health care debate and the fact that they are losing the fight (at least, for right now). When you are losing the battle, blame someone else in order to draw the attention away from the fact that you are losing. It is a classic misdirection - try to get someone focused on something other than the main issue and you might be able to sneak it through.

Second, they need a bogeyman to hide their own shortcomings and failures. These guys have a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and the majorities are significant). There is nothing that the Republicans can do to stop legislation. Yet, they still cannot get some of their key issues through Congress.

Third, they are blaming President Bush because they do not like him. This, of course, is no secret. They hated this man. Many would have been happy if President Bush had just died, or been shot. Now, we have the Obama Administration trying to feed off of this perceived, supposedly still-lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Obama Administration is trying to sell the American people on the fact that this excessive spending (whether Cap-and -Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care, TARP, etc) is necessary in order to bring this country back from a recession caused by the Bush Administration. I am having trouble trying to understand this concept. If it was wrong for the deficit to reach annual rates of $500,000,000,000, then how can it be OK for the government to go at least $1,500,000,000,000 in the hole this year alone in order to dig out of the hole?

This is a deficit at least 3x larger than any deficit we ever saw under the Bush Administration. In fact, there are some estimates now that show this year's deficit will be larger than all 8 years of budget deficits under George Bush, combined. And there is no end in sight to this madness. The liberals that are currently running the country are trying to find new and unique ways to spend our money. Instead of paring back government, they are trying to introduce government to new areas where they do not yet have a presence.

The founding fathers of this great country saw to it that the power of the government was to be limited. There were some basic areas where the government needed to be involved, but for the most part, powers were given to the states or to the people. The founding fathers did not want to see a government that was involved in every phase of our lives. Over the past 200+ years, government has slowly added to their power, while taking away the power of the state and the power of the people. Let us not forget the the role of the government is to protect our freedom and to clear the path so that Americans can chase their dreams and their goals without the fear of the government punishing them for being successful.

So my message to President Obama is this: Take responsibility for the decisions that you and your administration are making. We know that you do not want to admit to this, but this is what you have wanted to do. We know you wanted people to be dependent on government and not on themselves. Stop blaming others. Admit that these are your goals. Be proud of your achievements. And start packing, because if you continue down this path, you are destined for a one-term presidency.

Do we need another Declaration of Independence?

For some reason, I pulled out a copy of the Declaration of Independence a couple of weeks ago and read it. Now, I am sure that I have read through it before, but I do not think that I paid attention to it like I did this time. I tried to absorb the words, to get an understanding of the situation that the Founding Fathers were confronted with. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you.

One of the first things that caught my eye is that our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, only the freedom to pursue it. I do not see health care as a right, a new car as a right, a house as a right. We have the freedom to pursue those things, ot the right to own them.

The following text I find interesting: "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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

I put the emphasis to the above sections. If these sections do not speak about today's government, then I do not know what does.

The writers of the Declaration then go on to list the many grievances that they had against the King of England, several of which apply to today's national leaders. Among them are:

• "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
• "For imposing taxes on us without our consent."
• "For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments."

The signers then go on to declare their independence from Great Britain due to these grievances. They did not do so flippantly. They did this with great solemnity. They then conclude the Declaration with this phrase: "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Many of the men who signed this document eventually went on to fight for America's independence. Some of them lost their property and their wealth due to their stand. Some of them lost their lives in the Revolutionary War. These men took a stand, and our country is better for it today.

We do not face the same kind of persecution today. Thanks to our Constitution, we have the freedom to speak out when we believe the government is wrong. We can do this without fear of reprisal (for now). We can speak up without fear of being arrested. We do not have to go to war to fight for independence, because we already have it.

Since this is the case, then I only have one question to ask. Why are we so afraid to stand up for what we believe in? These men who signed the Declaration knew what was coming when they signed that Declaration. They know their lives were going to become more difficult. They know that they might lose everything they owned, possibly even their own lives. But they did it anyway.

We now have an opportunity for a revolution. No, not one that is fought with guns and swords. Rather, it is an ideological revolution, one for the hearts, minds, and values of the American people. It is time for us to stand up to our representatives, senators, and even the President to let them know the will of the people. If they do not listen, then we need to remove them. Even if they do listen, it may be time to remove them.

Our government is on that is "Of the people, By the people, For the people." It exists because of us, not in spite of us. It is time our government officials realized that.

Democrats complete disregard for the electorate

Over the past week or two, there have been many news accounts of ordinary citizens attending town hall meetings, confronting their congressional representative with their objections to the Health Care Bill that Congress is trying to push on top of us. The complaints are many. It costs too much. It will do away with existing, private health care plans. It will give too much authority to the government. It will cause health care rationing. And the list goes on.

Now, all of these are very valid complaints. And after reading about this bill, as well as looking at examples of other countries that currently have this government-sponsored health care, these issues are very accurate.

Now we see that the Democrat leadership (both in Congress and the White House) is trying to fight back, to try to get a foothold in this debate, as they can now see that they are losing on this issue. They have done everything in their power to demean the people who are speaking out against this issue. They are trying to threaten those who speak out against them. They are being nothing more than playground bullies on this issue.

They have accused the 'protesters' of being organized by the Republican Party. I know this is not true. I would not give the Republican Party that much credit right now. Then, the liberals go to their playbook. They blame entities like Fox News and talk radio (esp. Rush Limbaugh).

Their argument goes something like this: Conservatives are too stupid to create their own opinions so they have to listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in order to get the day's talking points. I find this viewpoint narrow-minded. Conservatives know what they believe and why they believe it. We do not like it when someone tells us what to think.

But there is an irony in all of this: Liberals can only argue in Democrat talking points. They do not have original thoughts of their own, as can be seen by their continual use of the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh argument. In fact, this argument is so popular amongst liberals that the President even uses it when he cannot get his way on something.

Now, the congressional leaders are saying that these protests are part of a small, lunatic fringe of the radical right. Barbara Boxer said that the protesters are too well dressed to be concerned citizens (as though, ordinary citizens do not dress neatly). Harry Reid said that these protesters are trying to destroy the democratic process. I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, as though speaking out on issues to your elected representative is a bad thing. I would think that trying to cram a bill through Congress that the overwhelming majority of Americans does not want and limiting debate on that bill is more responsible for the death of democracy. But who am I?

The same people that are decrying these opponents to the health care proposals are the same ones who spoke out against the Tea Parties earlier this year. They do not like that fact that we do not agree with them. To the elected representatives, power does not exist with the people. It exists with the government. They want the power for themselves, and they want to remove anyone that gets in their way, a la Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

The administration is doing their best to strong-arm everyone in their own party to get behind this bill. They are trying to bully the American people into getting behind this bill. And now they are getting physical with some of the protesters at these town hall meetings around the country. They want to beat us into submission. If they were really intent on getting the American people behind them, they would try to persuade us, not beat us. That tactic is just turning more people against them.

It is time we stand up and tell our elected representatives that they work for us. We put them there. If they are not going to listen to us, then we will vote for someone who will. We should not be living in fear of what they may do to us. They ought to be afraid of us and not voting based on the will of the people.

Applying the Wisdom of Ronald Reagan in Today's Political Landscape

Many people today know Ronald Reagan as an actor, who then went on to become Governor of California, and then the 40th President of the United States. He was a man who knew what he believed and actually stood up for those principles. He did not sell out his principles in order to gain political favor. He led us out of a brutal recession. He brought back a faith and trust in the American way of life at the height of the Cold War. He believed in Americans and America, even when they did not necessarily believe in themselves.

In the past couple of years, I have received Ronald Reagan calendars from the Reagan Ranch. These calendars are full of pictures of Ronald Reagan, both at work and at his ranch. They contain interesting factual nuggets. But more than anything else in this calendar, they contain many quotes from his speeches and his writings.

Today, politicians need speechwriters to come up with many of the pithy things that they say. This was not true with Reagan. While he did have speechwriters, many of these quotes belong to Reagan himself.

In reading these quotes, it is easy to see that Ronald Reagan believed that the problems that Americans face today are solvable. He believed that government intervention was not the way to solve these problems. Rather, Americans can solve these problems when the government steps out of the way, when we have a faith in God to get us through our trials, when we are free to help others in time of need.

• He believed in a limited government; not an oppressive, overreaching government.
• He believed in a government of, by, and for the people; not in a government in spite of the people.
• He believed that people should have a freedom to worship as they please; not a freedom from worship and all things spiritual.
• He believed that the founding fathers put together a document that could withstand the test of time; not a document that changes over time to whatever we want it to say.

As I read through these quotes, I am amazed at the things he believed and the way he governed. I marvel at a politician who governed as he said he would, something we do not really have today. Then I wonder, if we applied his wisdom to the way we are governed today (or allow ourselves to be governed), then how much better off would we be as a country?

I wish to share a few of these quotes in this post. I will occasionally share more of them as time goes on. But please take note of the things he says and how we could apply them to government today.

1. "You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy." Ronald Reagan - 1988
2. "Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will product less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates and the people produced more than ever before." Ronald Reagan - 1989
3. "We have long since discovered that nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program." Ronald Reagan - 1992
4. "All of us should remember that the federal government is not some mysterious institution comprised of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create we ought to be able to control." Ronald Reagan - 1981

There are so many more quotes that I could post here, but I think you get the main idea. Reagan believed that government was not here to fix everyone's problem, to provide for everyone, to be a nanny to us.

Ponder these "Reagan-isms". Read them over and over again. Try to understand that the way that the government is leading us today is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of Reagan. Then ask yourself "Why?" What is it that today's government officials (in both parties) do not understand about the ideas and principles that Reagan espoused and lived by? Why can't they see that, under Reagan, this country prospered? Why can't they see that when you get government out of the way, Americans can prosper and live in the freedom that the founding fathers envisioned?

Why do today's elected government officials feel that we cannot make our own decisions on anything? Why do they feel that we need the government to hold us by our hands every day of our life? Why do they feel that we are not smart enough to make good decisions?

Remember, we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why do we vote for these knuckleheads who do not believe this? Why do we vote for people who do not care about the people they represent? Mid-term elections are coming up next year. It is about time we vote for people who represent us and the freedom we cherish. We do not need to elect people who represent government bureaucracy. Let's take our country back.

The Supreme Court is not about diversity

I read with interest an opinion column by Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She uses the same liberal talking points concerning Judge Sotomayor's 'American success story' that we have heard from the beginning. Tucker speaks of Sotomayor's hard work, determination, sacrifice, poverty, personal tragedy, and ancestry. Apparently, Tucker is not familiar with Justice Clarence Thomas and his upbringing (if you have not read the book, My Grandfather's Son, I encourage you to read it). His story is just as (if not more) compelling. But that does nothing to qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court.

She then goes on to criticize Republicans who oppose Sotomayor's nomination because "she represents the activist-judge liberal-elite", according to Tucker. All you need to do is review the now infamous firefighter's case that the Supreme Court just overturned to see that she is an activist, liberal judge. In the past, she has also stated that law is made at the Federal Court level. I think she fits the definition of an activist judge.

Tucker states that many Republicans will oppose any judge that a Democrat President will nominate. This happened throughout the Bush Presidency with Democrats in the Senate - they opposed just about everyone, including Miguel Estrada. President Bush nominated Estrada to sit on the bench, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination any chance that they had. In fact, there were memos revealed that stated the Democrats were against him simply because he was Hispanic and nominated by Bush, and they thought a Democrat President should be the first person to nominate an Hispanic person to such a position. Racism? Yes, it is, but the Democrats actually had some Republican staffers fired for leaking the memos instead of answering for what the memos said.

Tucker then plays the race card, which is her expertise. She states that "there is a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity." What? Is this woman serious? I have not seen anyone mention her ethnicity except for the liberal elites, whether in Congress or in the press. The Republicans have opposed this woman on ideological grounds. To them, it has been about her decisions and her judicial temperament. It has been about her legal beliefs and what her view of the role of the judiciary happens to be. It was Sotomayor who said that wise Latina women will make better decisions than men. No one made that up. She said it. It is the liberals that want race to become the issue.

Tucker then spouts off about Pat Buchanan and a column that he wrote. Buchanan, in my opinion, has some good things to say, but he is off his rocker in many things he says these days. Anyway, he compares Sotomayor and the positive treatment she gets vs. Sarah Palin, and the treatment that she has been prone to receive. This is definitely a legitimate comparison, as Sotomayor has been praised beyond belief, while Palin has been scorned and derided at every opportunity to do so. Tucker proves this point, and she did not even try to.

Tucker then closes her column with this:

"There's just one problem: That vision of America - a country run by and for God-fearing white people of smalltown heritage - is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.

As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor, not Sarah Palin, represents the future."

This is nothing but race-bating on Tucker's part. Yes, we are more diverse, and I know no one on the conservative side of the aisle that has a problem with that. What we want is people to hold important positions who are qualified to be there. Race does not enter into the equation. One's ability to do the job correctly is what matters. It is the liberal establishment that is concerned about race and diversity, not the conservatives.

Where were the liberals when President Bush had the most diverse Cabinet in history? They were too busy saying that minorities sold out to conservatives. Where were they in supporting the Voting Rights Act and during the Civil Rights movement? They were trying to filibuster the legislation. Where were they in support of Lynn Swann? Or Ken Blackwell? Or Michael Steele? Oh, that's right, they were supporting the white guys that were running against them.

And I believe Sarah Palin has a lot of support. In the latest polls, she is only a few points behind the President in a theoretical 2012 head-to-head Presidential race. Palin is popular, and she also has a very compelling life story.

So, in summation, conservatives care about qualifications of those being appointed, not their race, not their life story. It is the liberals who are interested in diversity at the expense of qualifications and ability to do the job. Being a justice on the Supreme Court carries a lot of power and responsibility. It should only be those who have the qualifications who should serve on this most prestigious bench. All other characteristics should be cast aside.

Economics 101: Why Communism does not work

I would like to share with you an e-mail that I received today regarding a very simple approach to economics and prosperity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It really doesn't get much simpler than this.

What has happened to our values? - Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, on June 25, 2009, my wife had a birthday. We then went to the Harrisburg Hospital to see my younger brother's newest child. On the way, we heard about the passing of Michael Jackson, the so-called "King of Pop." We can also note that Farrah Fawcett died that day, but that was no longer news after the report of Michael Jackson hit the airwaves.

As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.

But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?

I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.

Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.

The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?

And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.

As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?

What has happened to our values? - Part 1

Several weeks ago, America waited with baited breath as Jon and Kate Gosselin had an important announcement to make concerning their marriage on their "hit" reality show. We all knew what was coming. You did not need to be a MENSA member to see that they were going to separate. That information was all over the tabloids for many weeks prior to the official announcement.

I had not watched the show prior to this big announcement, but yet I found myself being drawn into this show in order to see what this big announcement was all about. During the show, the interviews with both Jon and Kate (they were interviewed separately) told the sad story of a couple that had grown apart. The rigorous existence that they lived as "reality stars" was finally getting to them.

The part that saddened me the most, though, was the fact that they would rather separate from each other and share custody of the children, rather than stop the show and work out the problems in their marriage. I guess Kate summed it up best when, answering a question regarding the continuation of the show, she said "The show must go on."

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that these people would call themselves Christians after putting on this kind of selfish display. Forget the fact that Jon was cavorting with young women at bars. Forget the rumors that Kate was having an affair with one of her bodyguards. These two people are putting fame and fortune above family. They are putting their own fame and fortune in front of their children's well-being. They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They are allowing the American public to become voyeurs into their own little world.

I would hope that any group claiming to be a Christian group has dropped either one of these people from any speaking engagement that they may have previously been booked for. As Christians, we have had to put up with many people in the past who have claimed to have spoken for Christianity, but instead have brought upon us a bad name. Christians, it is time to stand up for what is right and Biblical, not what is popular and worldly/un-Biblical.

Three different, high profile murders.....but with similar motives

Within the past couple of weeks, our nation has had its attention turned to 3 different high profile murders, each of which has been committed by a different person, each of which had seemingly differing motives. However, all 3 of them have one thing in common: a built-up hatred for a certain group of people that drove them to commit the act of murder.

The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.

The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.

The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.

Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).

The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?

VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?

The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.

Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.

Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.

The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.