Green Piece

Dinesh D'Souza vs Daniel Dennett

2007-12-17T21:29:00.000-08:00

If you want to see a great debate by a brilliant Christian mind, please watch the following debate at the YouTube address below. Absolutely fantastic!! Dinesh D'Souza is able to articulate some great points. I suggest checking it out. I don't necessarily agree with D'Souza on everything, but I think you will find it highly enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=tothesource1&p=r

Also check out his site ToTheSource.org

Alan Keyes is Running

2007-09-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

I don't have time for a long post, but I've found out some exciting news. Alan Keyes is running for president. I like Alan Keyes and, barring some unforeseen event, I will be voting for him.

Crazy Backflip Into Pool

2007-09-08T18:09:00.000-07:00

This is my current favorite video:

Ben Stein - Expelled

2007-09-08T15:39:00.000-07:00

I loved him in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", I loved him on "Win Ben Stein's Money", and I loved him on "Dave" (a really small part). I don't have any idea whether or not this will be a good movie, but if it is playing anywhere near me, I will see it.

Calvinism vs. Freewill 1

2007-07-24T20:21:00.001-07:00

You can't be a Christian for very long without eventually getting into the debate of Calvinism vs Freewill. I, like many other Christians, have a position that I am confident is correct. There is a forthcoming post where I am going to lay out what I believe on this subject and why I believe it, but for now I just want to address the division that many believers - especially the Southern Baptists - are experiencing.

It is definitely important to flesh out what we believe about God, and debates within Christian circles on the "non-essentials" can be healthy, and even important, however, this issue has driven a wedge, not just between denominations, but between believers who otherwise agree on everything. This need not be so.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the matter of assigning motives to those with whom we disagree. Many that believe in free will say that Calvinists believe what they believe so they won't have to witness, or because they want to be a part of some movement, or because of some other invalid reason. Conversely, many Calvinists will accuse those that believe in free will of not being able to accept that God is perfectly sovereign or that they are unwilling to really look at the scriptures or some other invalid reason. It never occurs to some people that the person with an opposing viewpoint may just really believe that the Bible teaches something and that, despite the consequences of that belief, they cannot pretend to believe any other way.

The first step in any debate between two believers who disagree on some aspect of the scriptures is to, until proven differently, believe the best about the other person's motives. Please don't think that I am trying to suggest that maybe both sides are right or some other nonsense like that. Without question, somebody is wrong here (and I am pretty sure that person is not me). But what's wrong with both people laying out what they believe the scriptures teach, backing it up with scripture, and then if their "opponent" is not swayed just leaving it at that, secure in the knowledge that both of you love God, serve Christ and that when you both get to Heaven that other person will finally realize that he is wrong.

I especially like this post on Calvinism, and I like that comments associated with it. Nobody is angry and nobody is accusing anyone else of bad motives. The commenters and author of the post can walk away from this discussion with clean hands and a pure heart.

There is a world out there that doesn't know or care about our free will or God's sovereignty. This world needs the Church to be unified, but instead we let our minor beliefs divide the body.

And Satan is laughing.

Stem Cells Used to Grow Heart Valve

2007-04-01T19:44:00.000-07:00

Exciting news from the Brits. A team of researchers in London have been able to use stem cells to create a new heart valve. This is exciting because, if these researchers are correct, doctors will be able to create organs that will not be rejected by the patient's system.

Guess what word cannot be found anywhere in the article. The word you're looking for is "embryonic". That's right folks - these stem cells were harvested, not from an embryo, but from the bone marrow of an adult.

Liberals have been unavailable for comment because no unborn babies were killed, which means it's not real science.

Ben Stein's Open Letter to the Troops

2007-03-24T07:42:00.000-07:00

I hope every one of you will take the time to read the following letter by Ben Stein to our brave soldiers.

Ben Stein is an awesome writer and he has done a lot for the Pro-Life movement. This letter really touched me.

Every night I kiss my three boys good-night knowing that they will sleep peacefully and safely. There is only one reason I can do that. That reason is that God, in his infinite mercy, has created people braved enough to stand up to evil. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, police, firefighters, rescue workers and many others are doing the job of keeping my boys safe. No amount of thanks would be enough.

Global Warming Scare -- Give the Kids a Break!

2007-03-03T12:25:00.000-08:00

One of the more frequently discussed topics here at Green Piece is the subject of Global Warming. Some might question why this topic would get me so riled up when there are so many other topics worthy of my time and effort. Well, there are many reasons that I think debunking the flimsy science that fictional movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are based on is a worthy endeavor, but I think that what motivates me on this subject is the fact that these eco-loony alarmists, in their desire for political and economic power, are ruining (at least in part) the childhoods of so many individuals.

Check out this article that shows how the Global Warming Gurus are frightening our kids. Kids are actually losing sleep because they believe the lies that are being thrown out by the Goracle and his eco-minions. Kids are worried that entire countries will be submerged when they should be worried about having fun! Thank you AlGore. And the most ridiculous thing is that the author completely misses the point and blames these kids worries on Global Warming - not on the irresponsible actions of the eco-loonies.

Back when I was in school we were told that there would be no Ozone by the time I was an adult and that there would be no place to put all of our trash. Now, I will admit that I was a little extreme in how I reacted, but I would lay awake at night, scared to death of what life was going to be like in 10 years (because that is the mantra). Because of all of the films and videos and literature that was shoved down my throat in school I literally believed that we would all be walking around in our hazmat outfits among the trash and living like the people in the Mad Max movies. For the love of all that is good and holy, I wouldn't play with silly string because it depleted the Ozone. I tell you this story because, for one, I like to use the term "back when I was in school" (and by the way get off my lawn), and to let you know why I hate the scare tactics of the left so much.

When was the last time any of you heard anything about the Ozone? Uhhh, where is all the trash? Well folks, the Ozone is fine, and the trash is well under control and the same thing will hold true with the artificial catastrophe known as Global Warming.

The only thing that keeps me up at night now are the dreaded words "President Gore".

I Want My Global Warming

2007-02-04T12:53:00.000-08:00

For years scientists have promised us that if only we will continue to drive SUVs we would be living in a tropical paradise year round. Well, apparently their mouths have written checks that their science simply can't cash. I've been robbed.

Most Convincing Argument of Global Warming To Date

2007-02-02T11:41:00.000-08:00

Punxsutawney Phil predicts an early spring this year. I guess Global Warming is real afterall.

Guess How Many Years We Have To Save The Planet

2007-01-30T16:47:00.000-08:00

One thing about the left - you can always count on 'em. As I pointed out before, the never-changing mantra of the ecoloonies is that we have 10 years left. This was the mantra 30 years ago, it was Al Gore's mantra last year, and it is the mantra today.

The funny thing is, if you read the article it never says we have 10 years to save the planet, that's just what the headline leads you to believe. Instead the article goes on to explain that a bunch of celebrities are trying to get people to agree to a completely unmeasurable goal. I can refrain from doing some things (that I probably wasn't going to do anyway) and say that I just saved me some CO2.

If the lefties really want to reduce greenhouse gasses, maybe they should start by living in smaller homes and supporting nuclear energy.

Green Peace (not Green Piece) Harms the Little Guy

2007-01-27T17:00:00.000-08:00

I don't know if any of you watch Mary Katharine Ham's videos over at Townhall, but she does a great job of making informative and entertaining videos. This one is sort of a commercial for a movie called "Mine Your Own Business" (www.mineyourownbusiness.com) that shows how the environmental movement really hurts the poorest among us.

My favorite part is where the greenie tries to wax philisophical and by asking how we define who is rich and who is poor and then the video cuts to him showing a boat he bought for $35,000.

Click on the picture to check it out:

Bible Quiz

2007-01-27T16:23:00.000-08:00

I took an online quiz about the Bible and here is my score the first time through:

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Now I need to go do a study on humility :)

h/t One Angry Christian

Sign the Pledge!!

2007-01-27T06:32:00.000-08:00

Secretary Robert Gates has declared that the anti-surge resolution emboldens the enemy. He must be reading my blog. Oh, so he's the one.

There is something you can do - sign the pledge against this resolution. As of my signing there were 23,877 signatures. I think the pledge is worded very well, and that every person, whether or not you are for the surge, should sign it.

SPINELESS Republicans

2007-01-25T18:47:00.000-08:00

There are times for dissent, there are times to make known your disagreement, and there are times to keep your big mouth shut. Some of our Republican leaders need to learn the difference. There are at least nine Republican senators who are supporting a legislative proposal condemning the decision by the administration to increase the troops in Iraq.

I have no problem with them disagreeing with this decision, and I have no problem with them voicing that disagreement before the decision has been made and the plan put into effect. This resolution is nothing more than a political ploy that is meant to make Bush weak. Furthermore, this resolution will make success of the surge less likely. Public opinion during a war is important to the troops and (at least a show of) solidarity in your leaders is important to the troops. This resolution undermines both.

I have come to expect this from Democrats. Their thirst for power has obliterated either their decision making capacity or their desire for what is best for the United States. But these smarmy, political tactics by a bunch of Republicans is disgusting.

Richard Luger said "I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed". What good does it do to express this opinion other than to cover your backside?

The following is a list of Senators that should not be re-elected in the next Republican primary:
Richard Luger
Gordon Smith
George Voinovich
Sam Brownback
Susan Collins

These senators are named in the piece, but this goes for any senator that votes for this ridiculously infantile resolution.

Sanctity of Life Sunday

2007-01-21T13:38:00.000-08:00

It was sanctity of life Sunday in church this morning. My wife and I were working in the children's area so we didn't get to see the sermon, but our substitute Sunday School teacher did a great job of really driving home the importance of life and the fact that the most innocent and helpless among us are at risk of being legally murdered.

This is a picture of a set of triplets still in the womb at the end of the second trimester. Why is it that hanging Saddam was a bad thing, but killing these precious little ones is OK?

Picture Source: The Daily Mail

Bringing Me Back

2006-10-19T20:54:00.000-07:00

OK, my last post kind of bummed me out - but this will bring it all home:

Conservatives Must Not Stay Home

2006-10-19T18:57:00.000-07:00

You may have heard (over and over and over) that conservatives plan to stay home on election day. First things first - I am pretty sure that most of this is psychological warfare being played by the media wing of the Democrat party, commonly known as the mainstream media. Or, it could be just wishful thinking on their part. But in case there are any conservatives out there who are planning to teach the Republicans a lesson by not voting, allow me to correct you.

Numero Uno) If the Dems take control George Bush will be impeached. President Bush needs to be able to give his full attention to the war but instead he would be forced to spend time fighting off the ankle biters. Instead of giving our troops the leadership they need and deserve, he will be forced to give his attention to legal proceedings. Not only will time be wasted fighting off impeachment hungry Democrats, but every move that our Commander in Chief makes will result in an inquiry as to why it wasn't done better. He will not be able to cough without Harry Reid calling for an independent counsel that will determine whether or not he properly covered his mouth. And not only will our troops suffer, but this would be a great injustice done to a man who deserves more. We need to remember the leadership and love that George Bush has shown our country during the hardest times most Americans can remember. He deserves better. Many reading this blog don't agree with a lot of what the President has done. Same here. But he has my respect and my loyalty and if he doesn't have yours then, yes, I question your patriotism. (Before any of you have a heart attack, loyalty does not necessarily mean blindly following and agreeing with every decision, but it does mean giving his position due respect)

2) If you have a problem with Republicans being too liberal then punish them during the primaries. The general election is not the time. I agree 100% that a lot of these RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) deserve to be tossed out. But pretending that staying home is your political statement is a crock. If you wanted to do something then it should have been done long before now. For many the reason they are taking this road is because doing something, like supporting a candidate during the primaries, is much harder than doing nothing, like staying home.

C) Do you realize how much damage could be done by the Dems if they take control? Forget about getting a decent bench appointment. Good-bye ban on sucking the brain out of partially born babies. Good-bye tax cuts. Good-bye surveillance on the enemy, and for that matter good-bye war on terror.

If you're mad at the Republicans fine, but you still need to get up off of your blessed assurance on election day and vote and then do a better job during the primaries in 2 years.

Thank you - that is all.

Motivation!!!

2006-10-14T09:02:00.000-07:00

Reformatted Hard Drive

2006-09-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

Well, my laptop was running terribly. Nothing was "snappy" and it became very frustrating to just try to get my email. I am sure that I had viruses, adware and spybots running rampant. So, I decided to reformat my laptop and start over. The process wasn't too bad and it really seemed to work. It's running just like new except that my DVD/CD drive is working funny. I'm going to try to download a new driver and see what happens.

Anyway, if you are wanting to try the same thing, I suggest the following:
1. Go to this site. It was very helpful to me.
2. Be sure to back up everything.
3. Create a file that has all of your e-mail settings, etc. and burn it to a disk.
4. Pray - once you format it, it's gone.

Now that my laptop is working better I hope to do some more posting.

Nickel Blog

2006-08-06T18:16:00.000-07:00

Check out the following blog, written by a stay at home, homeschooling mom:

http://mynickels-worth.blogspot.com

You should check it often.

Newest Danger in the Solar System

2006-07-27T19:35:00.000-07:00

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I feel that I have to warn you. There is an anomoly in our Solar System right now that killed 60,000 people just last year. The technical name for this particular anomoly is G2V.

As if the senseless deaths of 60,000 people were not enough, this G2V has been proven to be THE major cause of Global Warming.

Unfortunately, it is too late to stop it.

Evil Words: Cycle of Violence

2006-07-18T06:09:00.000-07:00

There are some phrases that seem to be harmless and seem to make sense, but when you really look at what they mean they are truly an evil sentiment. The term "Cycle of Violence" is just such a term. Read this article by Dr. Sowell. You will be enlightened.

Dennis Prager also deplores this phrase. It reminds him of how, even when he was young, he deplored this idea. Namely, if one student punched another student, then the student that was punched defended himself a teacher would come along let them know that they were both in trouble. We are doing the same when we call the retaliation of Israel a continuation of the "Cycle of Violence."

Now, I have some experience with this because as a father of three boys I have, on occasion, done exactly as the teacher in the above story. Two of my boys will yell downstairs that his brother has taken a toy that he was playing with. Of course both boys believe that they had the toy. So I take the toy away from both of them. This is a moral travesty, so why do I do it?

One reason is that I have no real way of determining which child is in the right. The other reason is simple moral laziness. The former reason is defensible, the latter reason is not.

In the case of Israel we do not have the excuse of not knowing who is in the right, and those that would morally equivalize Israel's actions are morally lazy.

****Addition
Check out this article by Dennis Prager to more fully understand what is going on.

Israel Is Doing The Right Thing

2006-07-16T20:37:00.000-07:00

I was asked to weigh in on what is going on with Israel. Frankly, I think that what Isreal is doing is completely on track. They are a sovereign nation. Anytime they get kicked in the gut the world expects them to roll over and take it. They have the right to do what they are doing.

It is important, I think, to understand what it is that drives those who are attacking Israel. There is one common thing that they all want - dead Jews. It's not land and it certainly isn't peace. They live to see Jews get blown up.

There is no reasoning with these people.

Shouldn't a Hunger Strike Make You Hungry

2006-07-14T07:46:00.000-07:00

Folks,
Check out this MM post on Hotair. It is worth a listen if only for the impersonation. Hilarious.

Great Post on Diversity

2006-07-14T06:20:00.000-07:00

I think that you should all check out this post by La Shawn Barber. She nails it.

La Shawn Barber is really the reason I started blogging. One day I happened to be at home and on C-Span they had a group of conservative bloggers talking about what it is they do, how they got started, etc. Ms. Barber was very encouraging and it was her words that got this whole thing started.

You should visit her blog often.

Things You Need to See

2006-07-11T18:55:00.000-07:00

Folks,
There were a few things that I wanted to post to.

First: You need to read this post from our friend K at K-Block. He explains the reason he became a conservative. Don't miss it and K, thanks for such a great post.

Second: All of you need to read Dave Ramsey's articles at Townhall. It will really pump you up to get your finances in order. His mantra is "live like no one else so that later you can live like no one else" meaning that you can live a less extravagant life now to have an amazing amount of freedom later. Also, I want to attest to his "snowball effect" in getting rid of debt, though I didn't know that is what it is called. When I got out of college I had 3 student loans. I paid the minimum on the two biggest, and paid as much extra on the third (smallest) as I could. Then, when the smallest was paid off I took all of the money I was paying on the first and put it to the second smallest, which was a considerable amount against the principle. Finally, when the second was paid off I socked all of the money from the first two loans to the third and it went away very quickly. It took me about 2 1/2 years to pay off $30,000 in student loans and I was not making a ton at the time. Debt free is the way to be!! One other thing he said that I liked was that he would copy what rich people do, because he wants to be rich people. I love it.

Third:

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!

2006-07-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

On Monday we came dangerously close to being hit with an asteroid. Do you guys realize that if this asteroid, or another like it, were to hit the earth then we would all be dead. Scientists are in complete agreement that we may only have 10 years left. It is imperative that we get in on the Kyoto thing, that we all change our lightbulbs more often, quit driving cars, stop using deodorant, cease all eating of meat, keep abortion legal, eliminate school choice, raise taxes, pull out of Iraq, legalize same-sex marriages, and above all get the evil Republicans out of office.

Thank You.

10 Years Left: The Never-Changing Mantra of Ecoloonies

2006-07-03T07:35:00.000-07:00

I have found yet another article that shows that Al Gore's sequel to "The Day After Tomorrow" has not been based on consensus among scientists as much as it has been based on a strong desire to get a democrat back into the White House.

Also, I found this flyer from a 1975 Newsweek article (thanks to the Collegiate Patriot) that has some very interesting information. Besides the fact that the loons used to preach about Global Cooling and that nothing they predicted has come to pass you will notice some very interesting choices of words.

"The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years". Ummm, did anybody see that 1985 article where they admitted they were full of crap? Me neither. Interestingly we note that Al Gore is saying we have about 10 years left (30 years later). What is it with these guys and ten year increments. I'll tell you what it is. It's just short enough that people will get scared, but long enough that they will forget. My question to the loons is, in 10 years after we can no longer stop Global Warming will you then shut up? Probably not.

"In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950". First off, I thought this wasn't supposed to start happening for another 10 years, and second of all any scientist knows that an anecdote does not data make. Yet this same mistake is being made today by those that are trying to get political power through ecological scaremongering.

"But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." Is this the same consensus that we have in the Global Warming debate today? Methinks it is so.

The Only Ice that Is Melting is the Thin Ice Gore's Movie Stands Upon

2006-06-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

You should all check out this article by Tom Harris. It completely debunks the movie that was just put out by that guy that invented the internet.

Pleasant Reading,

Jason

More Convenient Lies

2006-06-12T18:00:00.000-07:00

Now Bill Clinton is getting into the ring of making lies about the environment for political gain. In the Associated Press article entitled Clinton Links GOP Policies to More Storms Bill Clinton links the natural cycle of hurricanes with global warming.

I get the feeling that we are in for a lot of this garbage until the next Presidential election.

There's a New Hero in Town

2006-06-01T20:18:00.000-07:00

According to Reuters, Sgt. Peter Damon, an injured U.S. war veteran, is suing Michael "I create crappy movies filled with lies" Moore for $85 million. Damon is claiming that Michael Moore used a clip of Damon without his permission. And to everybody's surprise the clip was taken out of context and used to make it look like Damon was against the war and the President when, in fact, Damon is a strong supporter of the war.

God Bless Sgt. Peter Damon!!!

A Very Convenient Lie

2006-05-22T19:56:00.000-07:00

The picture above does a great job of summarizing everything that is wrong with the environmental movement. As this BBC report shows, Al Gore is using Hurricane Katrina to scare you into voting the Republicans out of office. That's really what this is all about after all. The liberals use environmental demogaguery to scare you into voting for them. Even the climatologists that believe in global warming are saying, with almost no exceptions, that the hurricanes we have been experiencing have nothing at all to do with global warming. Al Gore knows this. But he doesn't mind lying about it if it will get your vote.

The reason this makes me so angry is because I spent most of my time between the 4th and 9th grade being very afraid of environmental issues. When I was in elementary school we were shown a video showing a trash ferry in New York. We were told that the world was filling up with trash so quickly that nobody knew what to do with this trash and that pretty soon there would be no more room in any of our landfills. It ends up that the shipper was just trying to save some money on where he was dumping the trash and inadvertently started the controversy. (See Myth #4 on this ABC story by John Stossel.) I don't want to be too melodramatic about this, but the irresponsibility of environmentalist wackos literally stole a large portion of my childhood. I wouldn't even play with silly string because I was afraid I was putting a hole in the ozone.

Now, I'm not going to go over all of the reasons that the Global Warming theory is full of holes (Michael Crichton does a great job of that here), but please, just stick with the facts and leave the scaremongering out of it.

Hot Air

2006-04-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to let you all know of a great new site run by Michelle Malkin called Hot Air. ou should take time to check it out.

Does God Repeal His Laws?

2006-04-28T18:47:00.000-07:00

After my last post about the Baptist School in Kentucky that expelled a student there were some interesting (and thought provoking) comments from some of my readers and through some private conversations I have had with others the following question has been on my mind. Does God repeal his laws? If you read the comments you will see that the old "Hey, if you don't believe in allowing same-sex marriage then you have to kill anybody that touches a football because it's made of pigskin" argument. I dealt with this weak argument in the comments section and will not rehash that here.

In a private conversation I was asked point blank whether God repealed some of the Old Testament laws. My answer was that in a way, yes, God did repeal some of the Old Testament ceremonial laws, but that none of the moral laws were abolished. Then, without much thought, added parenthetically the world "or more correctly, fulfilled the law". To be completely honest - I hadn't put much thought into the meaning of my words. I just knew that Jesus had said in Matthew 5:17 that he came not to abolish the Law, but instead that he came to fulfill them. Though I never would have said this out loud, subconsciously, I thought this was just a phrase that Jesus had used to kind of fill space. In short, I added the words so that I could sound churchy.

Suffice it to say, there are no words in the Bible that are there to merely fill space and since that email I have been thinking about this verse a lot and have become very excited about what this means to us today. The only correct answer to the question in the email is actually "No". God has not, and will not, repeal his laws because God is unchangeable. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This gives great comfort to the believer as God has made some pretty amazing promises to us and we know that he will not go back on his word.

So, if God has not repealed any of his laws then why do we not sacrifice animals anymore? Shouldn't we all be refraining from eating unclean animals? And what about the priests? What happened to them? The answer lies in the words that I once thought were space filler. Jesus fulfilled those laws. For example, one of God's unchangeable laws is that without the shedding of blood (sacrifice) there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). Jesus completely fulfilled this law on the cross. It's not that the law has gone away, it's that the sacrifice of the one and only truly spotless lamb has occurred. Jesus' perfect blood was enough to cover us all and fulfill the law. Another law is that unless you are perfectly clean (holy) then you cannot approach God (i.e. not eating unclean animals, ceremonial cleansing, etc). This law has not changed, but now you have been truly cleaned from the inside and this law is fulfilled. My last example is about the role of priests. Only a priest was allowed in the most precious inner part of the Jewish temple. In other words only a priest was allowed to approach God. Again, this has not changed. Instead Jesus fulfilled this law by making you (if you are a believer) into a Priest (I Peter 2:9).

I don't know if this does the same for you as it does for me, but I am so excited about this idea. I hope that it helps me (and you) to be more obedient to our Lord.

Thanks for reading,

Jason

Baptist School in Kentucky Upholds Their Stated Policy. Why Is This News Again?

2006-04-11T18:19:00.000-07:00

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader the University of the Cumberlands, a small Baptist college, has expelled a student after seeing his MySpace site, on which he declared his homosexuality. The student, Jason Johnson, was confronted by two school officials who showed him his profile, showed him a copy of the 2005-06 handbook, and them gave him a letter that required him to leave immediately.

These are the facts that were in the story. What I find interesting are the "extras". For example:

The news that his boyfriend, Jason Johnson, was expelled from University of the Cumberlands was still sinking in when Zac Dreyer sat at a computer to spread the news.

What in the world is this about? The news piece starts off with nothing but emotional fluff. Facts please, just give us the facts.

But a copy of the student handbook provided by the university confirmed the policy was not spelled out in 2003-04, when Johnson chose to attend.

Is this a new story or an indictment? It sounds an awful lot like a case is being made instead of a story being told. I went to a Baptist school and one year there were a couple of guys who broke a lot of rules - one of which being that they flagrantly displayed hardcore pornographic pictures in their room. Now, nowhere in the handbook could you find the words "students are not allowed to hang hardcore pornographic pictures on their wall", yet it was obviously against school policy.

Johnson, a sophomore majoring in theater arts, was expelled from the university Thursday because he declared online that he is gay.

The thing I like about this sentence is that is factual and correct. Throughout the story people are quoted as saying that Johnson was expelled for "being gay". Not necessarily true. What we do know is that he was expelled after declaring his homosexuality in a very public way.

I was, frankly, amused by many of the quotes that Johnson's fellow students made.

He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay

I guess that I have already covered this, but again, he was not expelled for what he is he was expelled for what he did.

They're being hypocritical, by Christian standards

First of all, in what way are they being hypocritical? I could see if she had said that they were not showing mercy or were being hard-hearted etc., but dropping the h-word is the old standby that people use to criticize any institution that is simply holding to a standard. Secondly, are there any standards of conduct that the school can appropriately uphold? What if Jason was having a public affair with a married woman? Good money says that he would have been kicked out and nobody would have blinked an eye.

Johnson, who is considering legal action against the university, said students shouldn't question their faith, but they should question their personal beliefs.

Huh?

The bottom line is that this is a private institution. If the state of Kentucky doesn't want to give money to private schools then so be it - pull funding from private institutions. But if the state has determined that giving money to private schools is a good thing to do then they shouldn't discriminate against schools because of their religious beliefs.

It's OK to Govern Based on the Bible - Part 2

2006-04-05T18:54:00.000-07:00

I got a comment on my last post and wanted to share my response with the readers of this blog.

Anonymous said...
But what about those of us who don't subscribe to the Christian bible? The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and just over 20% of the country doesn't practice Christianity.

It's okay to live by the bible, but to govern based on the religious text of one particular religion, especially when that governance impedes the rights of others, is unjust and unconstitutional.

Not to mention, religious texts are vague and figurative and there are hundreds upon thousands of interpretations and very little consensus between denominations and even within them. I don't think it can be done. Certainly it can't be done in a way that is fair to all Americans.

And is it really fair to deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples on the basis of a text that also codemns tattoos, sex during menstrual cycles, and vegetable gardens? I don't think so.

I will respond point by point:

But what about those of us who don't subscribe to the Christian bible?

Those who do not subscribe to the Christian Bible have the exact same access to our political system as I do. That is the beauty of being self-governed. The fact that I vote my conscious, and that my conscious is based on the Bible, does not mean that your religious liberties are being infringed upon. In fact, telling Christians that they can't be a part of the political process because of their religous beliefs is the real discrimination.

Not to mention, religious texts are vague and figurative and there are hundreds upon thousands of interpretations and very little consensus between denominations and even within them.

You are correct - but that is why we each get to vote on who we think is the best person for the job of legislation. Just because you and I might disagree on the meaning of scripture does not mean that I shouldn't get a vote.

And is it really fair to deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples on the basis of a text that also codemns (sic) tattoos, sex during menstrual cycles, and vegetable gardens?

The question of whether this is fair or not is for the legislators (democratically elected) to decide. To govern is to choose - and that is what our public servants are voted in to do.

I sincerely appreciate the comments and hope that you will send some more my way.

It's OK to Govern Based on the Bible

2006-03-28T18:59:00.000-08:00

On my way home from work today I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio. I only got about 5 minutes so I don't know who he was talking about, but he mentioned that this person's ideas amounted to a theocracy. Since I heard so little of Mr. O'Reilly's conversation I cannot say whether he was right or wrong, but I feel the need to clear up a very common misconception about what a theocracy is or isn't.

Before I get into this discussion I think that I should explain why I think the subject is important enough to merit a post. There is a misconception among conservatives that the only role that government should be allowed to play is to keep one person from impeding another person's rights. To be sure I agree that, for the most part, government should stay out of our business as much as possible. However, you can't place your whole belief in what a government should be on one single maxim. And anytime a conservative supports a law against something that is morally reprehensible (sodomy for instance) a libertarian is sure to claim that we are supporting a theocracy and that a true conservative would never agree to such an arrangement. For good measure a quick "you can't legislate morality" may be thrown into the mix. Now, we all know that a theocracy is a bad thing so that leaves us trying to make up reasons that such a law is better for society, or protects freedoms, or is better for "the children". We are afraid to say that something is a good law because the Bible says that a certain act is an abomination. But I contend that laws based on the Bible do not a theocracy make.

The definition of a theocracy is as follows:

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.
(www.dictionary.com)

In other words a Church governs the people. There are countless reasons that this is a bad idea, chiefly because it puts too much power into the hands of a few mere mortals. However, this does not prohibit us from making good laws that are based on Biblical teaching. A theocracy is defined, not by what the laws are based on, but by who makes the laws. This is an important distinction.

In the United States we are a self-governed people, which is what keeps us from being a theocracy. The populace elects people that they believe to be good legislators. This is known as a republic. In the beginning of our government the people unashamedly selected officials based on how strongly they held to Biblical principles. All 13 original states had some kind of exclusion in their constitutions that ensured the governor would be a Christian. Not only is it acceptable for the populace to vote according to the Bible, it is also acceptable for legislators to make laws based on Biblical principles as well. Of course there is a balance even to this. I do not advocate making all Biblical teachings law and it is not possible to "draw a line" as to what should and shouldn't be a law. That is why we elect legislators.

A good study in this is whether or not you support a law (or even a Constitutional amendment) that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Many conservatives do not feel that it is acceptable to say that they support such a restriction based on what the Bible says. Instead, we act as though we support the definition because without it families would fall apart (a true statement) or that people would stop getting married at all (another true statement) or some other secular reason. Let me say unashamedly that I support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman simply because "the Bible tells me so".

I would like to finish by making short work of the argument that morality-based laws are unconstitutional. First by pointing out that if the proposed change is a Constitutional Amendment it cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional. Secondly, the Constitution applies to the U.S. Congress. This means that States are free to make laws as they see fit. That is the definition of self-government.

Hillary's Rant Against School Vouchers

2006-02-23T19:02:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin has a great post about the rant from "She Who's Name Shall Not Be Spoken" against school vouchers. My first comment is that she sent her daughter to private school and she is doing everything she can to make sure that poor people do not get to have the same privilege.

Hillary tries to pull a bait and switch by giving a few scenarios that any level-headed person would have no problem with. You want to go to a Catholic School? No problem. A Jewish school? No problem. Then she moves on to the things at which any rational person would be aghast, White Supremacist's School and School of the Jihad. Just quickly, did she really say "School of the Jihad"? Yup, she did. All of this so that she can hide the fact that she really does equate Catholic and Jewish schools with a School of the Jihad.

I have two main points to make about this lame attempt at rehashing the already debunked theory that if we have school vouchers then all of a sudden some really bad schools will pop up and YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR IT WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS!! By the way, 5 years ago people always used Wiccan schools as their example because they thought that if they mentioned Wicca then we Christians would automatically cower in the corner begging the Democrats to save us from the School of Satan.

First of all we know the idea that all of these Jihad schools are going to pop up really is ridiculous. How do we know this? Because it isn't happening now. Do you realize that there is nothing illegal about having a White Supremacist school right now? Do you think that the Jihadists out there would love to have their school, but they can't get the money together for it? Obviously not. Is it possible that with vouchers some parents will use the money for a school that offends me? Yes - absolutely. But that is not a State sponsored religion. Where the money goes is decided by the parent. Many parents will make bad choices. But many, many, many more will make great choices.

Secondly, she tries to make it sound as if when the voucher system is put into place we will all of a sudden have all of these moral quandaries about who we can and can't give money to. What will constitute a school and what will not. I say that these questions pale in comparison to the decisions that a public school has to make every single day. A fact of education is that you cannot teach any subject (with the possibility of math - and shop) without injecting your own moral, philosophical and lots of times religious ideas into the mix. Any time you teach you will discriminate. In science you have to decide to how far to go with theories of origin. With history you have to decide what parts of history are more important and which pieces get left out. In English you have to decide from which pieces of literature you will read. Do you or do you not celebrate Christmas. Walter Williams has a great piece on just this subject.

I would like to make a deal with liberals right now. You let us have school vouchers and you can have total control of public schools. Just imagine, you can stop pretending that you respect Judeo-Christian values. You can get rid of Christmas, teach that the Founding Fathers were Hindu priests, and have long conversations about how much the students really hate their parents even though they don't know it. Of course, you won't take this deal because you know that when the better option is available parents will no longer send their kids to your failing social experiments.

South Dakota Passes Abortion Ban

2006-02-22T19:18:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday the State Senate in South Dakota passed legislation that essentially banning abortion. There are two camps forming pretty quickly in conservative circles. One camp that thinks this is a great thing and another that thinks we don't have the votes in the Supreme Court yet. I think that I am in the latter camp.

Assuming that Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito vote correctly (i.e. striking down Roe v. Wade) that only leaves us with 4 rock solid votes (I am very sure that Justices Thomas and Scalia will do the right thing). So, who does that leave us with?

Breyer - Definite no
Ginsburg - Definite no
Stevens - Definite no
Souter (otherwise known as Reagan's biggest mistake ever) - Probable no
Kennedy - ?????

I think it would be wise to wait and see if Bush gets another appointment because I don't think we can win it right now.

I've never wanted so badly to be wrong.

Mike Pence Speech

2006-02-21T19:33:00.000-08:00

One of my fellow bloggers, Mark Lancaster, pointed me to a speech given by Mike Pence, who is a Representative from Indiana. He gave a speech that accurately points out some things that absolutely need to change about the Republican party. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

We are in danger of becoming the party of Big Government. And for the sake of our party and for the sake of the nation we must say, here and now, to all who would lead us in this new century, "the era of big Republican government is over!"

This is absolutely right. We are spending too much. The Republicans are about giving the government less of your money to waste. Government spending is always inefficient. Therefore they need to be doing less of it!!

But what of those other promises central to our nation’s values and liberty? The promises that said, "We’ll cut spending. We’ll rein in big government. We’ll restore ethics and honesty to government."
On these promises? All sizzle and no steak. The ship’s galley just keeps sending up giant pu-pu platters of pork, platitudes, promises and never-ending pleas for patience to the passengers on the deck.

Again, a giant "Amen" from me. There is no reason that the Republicans have to spend the way we are spending other than using their ability to spend my money to get re-elected.

So it’s not enough to change the way lobbyists spend their money. We must change the way Congress spends the people’s money.

We cannot make enough rules to keep our Congressmen honest in regards to Lobbyist money. Just like campaign finance reform, lobby reform will be chock full of holes. However, if Congress doesn't have public money available to spend, then the lobbyists will not be spending their money on our politicians. I can't say it nearly as well as Dr. Williams - so read it for yourself.

Then there is my absolute favorite part of the speech:

And while fiscal and ethical renewal will not be easy, I’m puzzled by those who say it will take courage to make these changes. Perhaps they confuse courage with will. It takes no courage to cast a vote or speak from the well of the House of Representatives. There are no grenade launchers or snipers in the visitors’ balcony.

I have nothing to add to the above statement.

So, are there any brave politicians out there? Well, obviously Mike Pence is an example. I hope that you will also take the time to read George Will's column about Oklahoma's Tom Coburn. We need more men like these two guys.

Blob Eating Downtown L.A.

2006-02-21T19:21:00.000-08:00

Mystery Blob Eating Downtown Los Angeles!!

Editor's Note: Picture has nothing to do with the story. If you thought that it did it's only because you discriminate against overweight people who make really bad films.

Environmental Pipe Dreams

2006-02-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

I patiently listened to President Bush's environmental hat tips during the State of the Union and I understood why he did it. I have no problem with throwing the environmentalists a bone so that they can go back into the woods, lick some frogs and leave the grown-ups alone for a while. But it's starting to get out of hand.

Deb Riechmann reports that The President is still talking about these new alternative sources of energy as though it was the real deal. Now, there is no harm in trying to inspire entrepreneurs out there to achieve the technologically impossible. At one time the light bulb was technologically impossible. However, it is not realistic that any time soon we are going to be running cars on "switchgrass". It's not a matter of wanting it really badly, it is a matter of energy. Oil contains a ton of potential energy - switchgrass does not.

The real problem is that there is an opportunity cost at stake here. While we are spending time and money on ideas that are not feasible we are losing some real opportunities to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The most direct way to do this is to tap into our own reserves. I'm not going to spend much time on this, but that Alaskan National Wilderness Reserves are sitting there waiting for us to use them. Short term problem solved.

What about the medium and long term solutions? Well, many scientists and economists believe that oil is the long-term solution, but for the sake of argument let's say it's not. No problem, there is another very feasible option eagerly waiting for us to use it's potential. Remember when I said that switchgrass does not contain the needed potential energy? Well, that's not entirely true. You see, there is one way that a lot of energy can be extracted from ordinary materials and that is by splitting the atoms of the material. This is known in scientific circles as the nuc-u-lar option. While it's not very practical to try to split the atoms in switchgrass, I think you get the point. Nuclear energy could be used to run the country. We have heard a lot about hydrogen fuel cells, but what most people don't know is that you can't just take some hydrogen and get energy from it. They hydrogen has to be "charged". In a sense a hydrogen fuel cell is just a really good battery. So, unless you have a really cheap way to charge the cell (nuc-u-lar for example?) then hydrogen fuel cells don't do you any good. However, using these fuel cells we could literally run all of our cars on nuclear energy.

The most perplexing aspect of Bush's attempts to appease the environmentalists is that time and again they slap him in the face for attempting to meet them in the middle. Here he is giving some semblence of credibility to the left's pet energy projects and they respond by criticizing his support for SUVs.

If the left really believed in these moonbat ideas they would jump at the chance of having a Republican president on their side. This should be proof to those who would try to reason with the libs that their pet projects are merely vehicles that they use to get more political power.

More on Bin Laden Tape

2006-01-20T21:58:00.000-08:00

It seems that the left is incapable of seeing the plain and obvious. So, instead of living in the real world and admitting that their rhetoric is helping the enemy they make up moonbat theories that the President is the one who orchestrated the message from Bin Laden. And it's not just the loonies either - Jack Cafferty (who is apparently a former Carolina Panthers cheerleader, see caption on picture above) from CNN is espousing this idea as well. Of course the way he is doing it is right out of the Howard Dean playbook so that when challenged on it later he can say "Uhhhhh, I didn't say that Bush did it, I was just saying it was an interesting idea, uhhhhh". The video is on The Political Teen. Check it out.

Bin Laden Tape Proof

2006-01-19T19:33:00.000-08:00

The recent message from Bin Laden should be proof positive to the lefties that their comments are reaching the ears, and lifting the resolve and spirit, of our enemies. For instance:

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground

The first thing I noticed is that Bin Laden is very appreciative to the MSM. He admonishes us to listen to those that are demoralizing our troops and our citizenry.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their points. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the
horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

Bin Laden killed average citizens on a sunny day while they were trying to put food on the table for their families. We took inappropriate pictures. That's about the same thing right?

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

This comment could just as easily be found on moveon.org.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

Here Bin Ladin is paraphrasing John Kerry.

To those who criticize the war I would say that you need to be very careful. Disagree with going if you must, but do not give our enemies political ammunition for the purpose of taking cheap shots at the President.

Interesting Comments from Dems

2006-01-15T16:45:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading the article Glum Democrats Can't See Halting Bush on Courts, which was written by Adam Nagourney. There were some really interesting comments by some Democrats about the Alito hearing.

For example the article states that:

In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.

I am really at a loss as to what these Democrats meant when using the term "the lesson of the Alito hearings". Is the lesson directed at the citezenry, or was it a lesson they learned. I sincerely hope that it didn't take a hearing of this magnitude to teach these elected officials that the President is the one that chooses how is on the Supreme Court.

One piece of rare common sense came from Ronald Klain. When asked if they could slow the President's judicial successes he responded with the following quote:

No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it's going to take a long time to undo them.

This seems so simple - but in this day and age it eludes most liberals. The way to control who it is that goes on the bench is to win elections. Unfortunately for liberals the only way that they can get their ideas pushed onto the citizenry is to do it in the courts. Since they haven't been able to make a judge declare the President's authority to appoint Supreme Court Justices unconstitutional I'm afraid they are pretty much out of luck.

ThisThis Just In: Bush Appoints People Who Agree With Him

2006-01-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

I just read a shocking piece of commentary at the washingtonpost.com. According to David Broder's piece entitled The Company Man, the constantly devious President Bush has gone and appointed a judge who agrees with HIS judicial philosophy - the nerve. This is appalling because as we all know the President is really supposed to pick someone who agrees with Ted Kennedy. The next thing you know he is going to try to marry someone HE loves.

The fact is that he is supposed to appoint judges he thinks will be good. It's in the Constitution people.

Why We Do Evil

2006-01-02T12:26:00.000-08:00

This Christmas I received Star Wars III and while I was watching the documentaries George Lucas said something very interesting about Darth Vader's evilness. Before I go on, though, I want to say here and now that Hayden Christiansen absolutely ruined SWII and III. He made Anakin into a whiny little girl and it really annoys me that he took a series that I love and put a giant black mark on it. After all, did Mark Hamill turn Luke Skywalker into a whiny little girl? Ummmm, don't answer that.

Anyway, George's comment was that really Darth Vader was the victim, not the villain. This really got me to thinking about good and evil and why anybody does evil things, etc. Here is what I came up with. First of all, nobody ever actively thinks "I am going to do evil". They either think that what they are doing is the right thing, or they think that even though what they are doing is "bad" they, in this particular case, are justified for some reason - even if the reason is not a very good one. Take, for instance, our man Darth Vader. Vader was willing to kill people at the drop of a hat. But for him, his actions were justified because he was trying to bring peace to the galaxy. In fact bringing peace to the galaxy (a really good thing) became the only virtue that mattered to him.

To this end, I find that most of the great evils in the world are done because someone took a virtue and made it the only virtue. Let me give you some examples. Personal freedom is a virtue. It is what America is all about. But, when this virtue is esteemed to the exclusion of all others we find that people are willing to kill unborn babies in order to guarantee a mother's right to do what she wants with her body. So, we sacrifice life for personal freedoms.

OK, then what about life? Is it the ultimate "good" thing we should be striving for? The answer is no. When life is esteemed above all you end up as a pacifist who is unwilling to support a just war, or you are unwilling to concede that murderers should be put to death. Liberals say that war solves nothing. This has been proven wrong time and again.

There are conservatives who believe that liberty is the only virtue - so common sense gets thrown out the window and good laws are eschewed. As we can see these "pet virtues" get in the way of doing what is right. And not only in the "big" circumstances, but in the little ones as well. When raising your children, some parents think that strict obedience is the only good and they push it to the point of excluding any other spiritual discipline that your child needs. On the flip-side some parents feel that an open relationship is the ultimate. This obviously leads to disaster as well.

So, is there an ultimate virtue. In a sense there is. This will sound a bit trite, but the truth is that God himself is the ultimate virtue. Our lives need to have the goal of serving and pleasing Him, starting with accepting Jesus as our personal savior and from there growing in our relationship with God. You see, just as it is easy to make an idol out of something God created, it is also easy to make an idol out of the virtues that come from God. And that is what we do. We idolize our favorite virtue and we, in our minds, make God a slave to that virtue. When we do this we find ourselves telling God how it should be.

An example of this is the virtue of fairness. There is a saying that is used in Christian circles that goes something like this "If God does not bring judgment on America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorra an apology". This is wrong-headed thinking. I actually agree with the point that these people are trying to make (i.e. that if we need to turn things around as a nation lest God's judgment come upon us), but their idea that God is somehow bound to fairness is incorrect.

In short, we need to keep in mind that God is the source of all good and there is no formula to knowing what is right and wrong, but there is an instruction book. It is called the Bible and if you will immerse yourself in it you will find yourself a long way down the road to knowing what is right and wrong in most circumstances.

Democrats: On the Wrong Side of History - Again

2005-12-28T16:03:00.000-08:00

This article from the Wasthington Times (Centrist Democrats hit anti-Bush tactics) has some great points about how the Dems have overplayed their hand regarding the "Bush Spied" story. I think their main problem is that they really don't understand that most people are not political. Most people don't have an agenda of destroying the President, especially during a time of war. The Left's hatred for President Bush has blinded them to the political reality that Americans expect their government to "provide for the common defense" (I think I've read that somewhere).

My wife is not someone that most people would call political. She is aware of issues and has opinions on them, but she doesn't care about who wins or loses. She just wants our government to do what it is supposed to do. So, it was interesting for me to hear her response when I first told her about the scandal surrounding the President and his completely legal spying - "And that's a bad thing because?". It was apparent to her that what George Bush did was the right thing. Most people think this way and the Dems are, once again, on the wrong side of the issue.

UCLA Study Concludes that Media has Liberal Bias - They Also Discovered that Snow is Often White

2005-12-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

A 3 year long study by a UCLA political scientist has shown, I think pretty conclusively, that the media in this country has a left-leaning bias. In fact, the general media is so biased that The Drudge Report is seen as left leaning because it links to stories from the mainstream media. The method they used was very scientific in that they indexed "right leaning" and "left leaning" statements against statements made by lawmakers. These lawmakers political leaning was also indexed against his or her voting record. Also, this study did not include any opinion pieces. It was based solely on news articles.

While the conclusion of this report was blindingly obvious - it is nice to have the confirmation.

NY Times Story a Double Whammy Against Journalistic Integrity

2005-12-17T07:11:00.000-08:00

Check out this thread at lucianne.com. It highlights the fact that the "Bush Spied" story that the NY Times put out there was actually an excerpt from the author's book that will be coming out shortly. The real sadness here is not the damage this might have done to the President (Gdub can handle himself, and he does it very well). It is the fact that they used this story to pull steam from the good news coming from Iraq.

The election should have been front page news. However, it is understandable that they wouldn't wanted printed since it would have been damaging to their case that Iraq is a quagmire. No wonder people have stopped reading this rag.

Libs are Scared of Conservative Blogs

2005-12-11T12:38:00.000-08:00

Michael Crowley, of the New York Times wrote an article entitled "Conservative Blogs are More Effective". This article is proof positive that the Liberals don't like the new world that we are living in that keeps them from spouting off any diatribe they want. Now, you may be thinking (if you only read the title of the story) that this article is a Liberal conceding that the Conservative may have something going for them. But don't worry, dear reader, I am here to show you the true meaning of this article.

What Mr. Crowley said:

Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.

What he means:
With this sentence the author is trying to show his readers that conservatives are not, necessarily smarter or more adept, it's just that they cheat. You see, while the intelligen liberals are spending time looking at each issue's nuance and debating with each other about the best way to come to the same conclusion, the conservatives are all going to Rush's site and getting their marching orders.

What Mr. Crowley said:

When the liberal activist Matt Stoller was running a blog for the Democrat Jon Corzine's 2005 campaign for governor, he saw the power of the conservative blogosphere firsthand. Shortly before the election, a conservative Web site claimed that politically damaging information about Corzine was about to surface in the media. It didn't. But New Jersey talk-radio shock jocks quoted the online speculation, inflicting public-relations damage on Corzine anyway. To Stoller, it was proof of how conservatives have mastered the art of using blogs as a deadly campaign weapon.

What he means:
The conservative blogs are the new yellow journalism. Here, Mr. Crowley tries to make you think that the conservative blog "machine" pulled a number on their readers. In other words, we are not bringing information to light (ahem, Dan Rather - memogate, ahem) we are just confusing people.

What Mr. Crowley said:

But what really makes conservatives effective is their pre-existing media infrastructure, composed of local and national talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel and sensationalist say-anything outlets like the Drudge Report

What he means:
Whine, whine, whine, boohoo, whine and boohoo.

I think it is very interesting that when this whole "internet" thing started the dope-smoking long-haired hippies of the world thought that we were entering the new Age of Aquarius whereby ideas from all around the world would come flooding in and be at the disposal of all people. Of course, what they thought this meant was that they would be able to fool more people into believing the way they believed. But now, the reality is starting to set in for them. Just because we have something to say, doesn't mean we can make anyone listen to it.

Update: Michelle Malkin has a piece on this as well.

New GOP Ad - You Need To See It

2005-12-11T12:17:00.000-08:00

The plan for Democrats: Retreat and Defeat, or Cut and Run, or "Thank you sir, may I have another"

You have got to check out the ad on the GOP website. It is perfect. Thanks to whoever put this one together.

Integrity

2005-12-09T22:00:00.000-08:00

This man has shown the world what integrity looks like. There was no political upside to his support for the war, yet he did the right thing. Thank you Senator.

Democrats: Short Memories - Long Wind

2005-11-30T19:49:00.000-08:00

I was reading a story on Drudge about Hillary Clinton and what she had to say about her vote for the war. I read that the Senator from New York said "I take responsibility for my vote". For a split second a thought came into my head that I never thought was possible - maybe Hillary Clinton is going to do the right thing.

Frankly, I was scared. My entire world had turned upside down. Black was white, up was down, right was left (which means wrong). Dogs and cats were living together and it wasn't pretty. The scene in my head was one of myself and Hillary Clinton running toward each other in slow motion on a grassy, daisy spotted hill. Only, instead of there being beautiful music playing I was hearing the theme from Jaws. Very disturbing.

Mercifully, the world turned back to normal when I read the rest of her quote: "and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war". So, really it was just her using the old standby "Bush Lied".

It is amazing that Democrats are able to get away with this lame excuse for a criticism of the President. This whining would make sense if it weren't for one small detail. These same people were privy to the exact same evidence that the President had and they voted for the war.

What could have been going on that would make these otherwise dove-ish legislators vote for a war that they would later call unjust? How about an election? No doubt about it, at the time talking tough was good for their electability. But there is one inescapable truth that guaranteed that they would change their minds. The fact is that war is really hard. It is hard on the soldiers (duh), it is hard on the families at home, it is hard for the populace to stay solid (especially when the only update that they ever hear is "5 US soldiers were killed today"), and it is very hard for politicians.

This rhetoric may be dangerous to our soldiers and it will certainly undermine our ability to fight this war, but it sure will get them some votes. Sleep well tonight Senator.

Jessica Simpson's Marriage

2005-11-24T18:36:00.000-08:00

You will find absolutely no information about Jessica Simpson's marriage at this blog. For this, you should be thankful.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Noodle Spined Repubs Making Me Sick

2005-11-14T20:17:00.000-08:00

Well, here we go. The President is seeing some low polling numbers and it has scared the Republican controlled Senate. But have no fear for our conservative leadership has a plan. This plan is really a two step plan. Step 1: Bend Over. Step 2: Grab Ankles. This plan is becoming quite familiar. It was the same plan we used when the minority party (that means they have less votes so they aren't supposed to be the ones in control) decided to push a filibuster down the throats of the American citizenry.

First things first let us take a step back and realize the poll numbers go up and poll numbers go down. Leadership, however, is supposed to remain solid. I guess I should let you know what has me so riled. It is Senator Frist's sponsorship of a resolution demanding a plan from President Bush on how we are going to finish up the war. Maybe in the meantime he can send a memo to our enemies letting them know where we plan to pull out first so that they can leave that place alone for now until we are gone.

Well, I am going to go to bed, stare at the ceiling and just be ticked off at the lack of backbone that has been shown this week.

Mr. President, keep up the good work and don't let the sissified among us get you down.

Also, check out Blogs for Bush on Bush's speech from last week.

What's In a Name?

2005-11-13T19:27:00.000-08:00

For some reason, within the last couple of days or so an interesting topic has come up in front of either myself or my wife. The subject is regarding whether or not children should be allowed to call adults by their first name. I will let you know right off the bat that our children are not allowed to call adults by their first name. A very popular option in our church is to have the children call the adults by their first name, but put a "Mr." or "Miss" in front of it. Frankly, my wife and I are not really into this either. We have found through a couple of conversations that other adults actually have a problem with the fact that our children are required to call adults by their last names.

I am not really sure when it became the norm for children to call adults by their first name. My parents were not what you would call strict, but still, calling an adult by their first name (with the exception of some really close family friends) is very foreign to me. I didn't really realize it was a big deal until Lisa and I started to work with 3 and 4 year olds at church. Lisa and I always refer to ourselves using our last names. "Hey everybody, Mrs. Green is going to lead us in a rousing chorus of 'Jesus Loves Me'". It was obvious from the start that we were in the minority on this issue. It doesn't bother me that I am in the minority. I wish I could tell you that it doesn't bother me when I hear a child call an adult by their first name but it does. It really does.

This whole business of children being put on an equal plane with adults is one that liberals have been trying to push for a long time. To a liberal, there is no difference between an adult and a child. Children's opinions and thoughts are as valid as any adult's. This does not wash with common sense, with tradition or with the Bible. Liberals do all that they can to promote the idea that children are simply little people. This is done by trying to lower the voting age, by lowering the age at which they become sexual and lowering the age at which their parents have control over them. Actually this last point has more to do with lowering the age that government has more control of them so that the State will control them for the rest of their lives but hey, let's not split hairs.

The apex of liberal's fascination with treating children as adults came during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. During the convention the Democrats paraded a 12 year old girl out on the stage. This young girl was given the opportunity, and one must assume encouraged, to give a scathing diatribe against the President and Vice-President and to openly show disrespect, not only to an adult but to the President of the United States of America.

If my child spoke this way to any adult they would certainly know the "wrath of Dad", but in today's society seeing a child speak this way to an adult is taken very well. If the child is 2-6 years old it is seen as cute. If the child is 7-12 it is seen as the child "learning to think on their own". Anywhere between 13 and 18 and the child is just trying to "find out who they really are".

You may be wondering why I think this is so important. The reason is because if you go into the average school today and ask the teacher if they can tell which kids in their class are the Christian kids based on how they treat their teacher I am positive you would be told that they cannot. More than likely the best they would be able to do is point out a few Mormon kids who show them the respect they deserve. I know this to be the case - I have asked teachers this exact question. I have spent a considerable amount of time around Christian teenagers and seen their disrespect towards adults. I know this to be the case.

Why is this happening? Because we are not teaching our children that there is a difference between children and adults. I will bet that most of the people who read this post now have a lower opinion of me for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe a child's thoughts on a particular subject are not as important as my thoughts. Why is what I have to say more important? Because I am an adult. I have had more experience in life. I have had time to develop a better awareness of how this world works. There are people who come to our house that are appalled to find out that we do not allow children to take their drinks out of our kitchen, but that we have no problem with an adult doing the same thing. People actually ask me how I explain this discrepancy to our children. The answer is simple, we are adults they are children. We have greater faith that an adult will not spill her drink. It is amazing how this makes perfect sense to the child, but not to the parent.

This post is dragging on a bit so I will wrap up with my thoughts on why children should refer to adults using their last name.

1. Children are supposed to refer to adults by their last name.

2. It makes it harder to make them mind. This probably doesn't matter to a lot of people, but it's a big deal to me. We, as adults, are given the charge of teaching these young ones how they are to act in the world. This is harder to do when they just think of you as someone who is on equal footing with them.

3. A rite of passage is lost. I will never forget when I was in college and I was told by a man I respect that I should call him by his first name. He had been a coach at my High-School. I called him "Coach Wolfe" and he told me to call him "Mike". I couldn't do it, but man what a way to let a boy know that he is truly a man.

4. Children are supposed to refer to adults by their last name.

5. You are setting them up for a better respect for God. It would be easy to overstate this one but I really do believe that instilling a sense of respect for adults in children sets them up to have a better respect for God. One time I was praying with a group of people. It was really more of a deal where we were sitting around giving some praises to God. Something happened that struck me. One of the guys actually said the sentence "God, you are the man". We as Christians really have developed a severe lack of respect for the righteous and holy God of the universe. I believe that some of this, but not all, is attributable to our lack of respect for our elders.

President Bush Comes Out Swinging

2005-11-12T13:18:00.000-08:00

Finally, President Bush has responded to critics of the war. This speech was nothing short of a breath of fresh air for me. It is amazing that he has had the patience to sit back for this long. If you haven't heard what he said, you can watch the video here. I am proud of our President. I am sick of hearing his detractors lie about what happened while we were deciding whether or not to go to war with Iraq. And, I would like to say that I fully, 100% and completely support the war in Iraq. Knowing what I now know about weapons of mass destruction, I still think that we are safer because of the war in Iraq.

Of course you can always count on the libs to be whiners when reality is fed to them with a spoon. Here are some of the comments that were made by the libs.

Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home, the president reverted to
the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have ought.

--Edward Kennedy D-Mass.

Senator Kennedy, this is a very interesting comment considering what you said in 2002. Let me help you remember

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. --2002

and

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be
tolerated. He must be disarmed --2002

Senator Kennedy's words are an example of someone talking tough to get elected. However, his tough talk will not help our troops whose morale he is killing with his dissention. Senator Kennedy, it is time for you to go away now.

Then there was our old friend Harry Reid.

The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. I'm not really going to comment on what he said because I think that it is funny enough on its own, but I did want to post it because he really is a funny little man.

I am disappointed with our good friend Rick Santorum's lack of support.

Certainly, mistakes were made

-- Rick Santorum

Brilliant Senator, just brilliant. Now sit back down in your armchair where you can continue with your quarterbacking.

Again, I want to say that I think this speech was awesome. It had to feel great.

Obscene Oil Profits

2005-11-10T20:25:00.000-08:00

OK, now it is time for me to take any chance that I ever had of making people like me and throw it down the drain. I have been asked to blog about the record profits that oil companies are having this year. This is a touchy subject to people, but I will say that my thoughts are that companies (especially publicly traded companies) are in business to make money. If they are not doing something inethical (making lots and lots of money doesn't count) then I say let them do their job.

The fact is that I cannot say it as well as Walter Williams, so I will simply refer you to the man himself and let you read what he said about Windfall Profits.

Scooter Who?

2005-11-01T19:04:00.000-08:00

If there is anything you can count on it is one piece of news making yesterday's big headlines today's snore-fest. Oh well, I'm glad at this point that the big thing is my new biggest hero, Samuel Alito. The Washington Times claims that the confirmation process is going to be Armageddon. I hope so. As I said in my last post I can't wait for the debate to get started.

Also, as K said on his post "Alito for SCOTUS", please call your Senator and let him/her know that we want a fair and quick hearing. Let them know that dropping the f-bomb (filibuster) is not acceptable. A simple email will do a world of good. Also, give them a call. They count the calls and each call makes a huge impact. If you don't feel good about actually talking to someone then wait until the evening to give them a call and leave a quick message on the answering machine. Remember, you don't have to be eloquent - this is a numbers game. If you just call and mumble something about supporting Alito then you have done your patriotic duty. Let's get those phone ringing!!

Now This is More Like It

2005-10-31T19:48:00.000-08:00

Well, it's not Janice Rogers Brown, but hey, I'm excited. President Bush appointed Judge Samuel Alito. This is an excellent choice and we as conservatives need to back him.

The guys over at What Now have posted a great way to support Justice Alito. Please visit them and check out their post entitled "Thank God!". Harry Reid is doing his normal passive-aggressive-just-before-becoming-really-nasty-aggressive thing by asking whether or not Alito is "too radical for the American people".

I am really looking forward to this fight. Not because I like fights, mind you. That was certainly true of me a few years ago, but now fights are not something I go around looking for. However, in this case the fight that is going to happen during the Alito confirmation process will bring to light many important issues. I'm not talking Roe vs. Wade either. I'm talking Constitutional authority, state's rights, and judicial activism. Were these three things properly understood (or more correctly properly cared about) then abortion would not be legal today and we would be a far freer society.

Back to Work

2005-10-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

OK, Rove wasn't indicted and the Miers fiasco is out of the way. It is time to get back to what we hired George Bush to do. Get a conservative (i.e. strict constructionist, originalist, non-activist) judge on the bench.

I would love to hear from some of you who you think it should be. I am currently partial to Janice Rogers Brown. Part of it may be because she is a black woman, but most of it is because of what I have read her say. Let me know what you think.

P.S. - you will find some great suggestions at What Now.

Harriet Miers: A Class Act

2005-10-27T07:27:00.000-07:00

I never really felt good about the Miers nomination. My thoughts are that she was probably going to be a pretty good judge, but the only thing I was basing that on was the fact that, pretty much I do trust President Bush. That trust was not enought to make me feel comfortable about putting her on the Supreme Court.

Today Miers announced that she was withdrawing her nomination. This appears to be a selfless act. I believe that she is acting in the best interests 0f the nation. So, my hat is tipped to you Ms. Miers.

Now, let's get Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court - is that too much to ask? I think not.

Check out K-Block and What Now for some good analysis as well.

Biodiesel Commercial

2005-10-26T11:15:00.000-07:00

I live in Arkansas and there is a commercial on the radio that features a lady, who I think works at a truck stop (?), and is talking about how wonderful biodiesel is. I'm doing this from memory, but her points are that it burns cleaner, it makes us less dependant on foreign oil, and because of government subsidies it is cheaper. I can neither confirm nor deny point #1. It may burn cleaner, it may not - I don't know. I am sure that if you look hard enough you can find an excellent article proving both sides.

I do have a problem with points 2 and 3. Let me first say that I am all about becoming less dependant on foreign oil. I think that one of the best things that could happen to Americans (at least economically) is that we find some really good way to heat our homes, light our rooms and move our cars that does not involve importing something that we need from a bunch of people who hate us. However, I am not sure that biodiesel is the answer (yet).

The problem with points 2 and 3 lies in the government subsidies. At first, it seems like a really good idea - have people buy more biodiesel by artificially making it cheaper. For the actual trucker that is pumping fuel into his* truck biodiesel might make sense economically. Most people would look at the fact that the government is picking up some of the tab and say that they are making it cost less.

This is wrong. It still costs more than buying regular diesel, it's just that someone else is paying for it. If you just said to yourself "sure, but that person is the government" then you can feel good knowing that you are in the majority when it comes to understanding economics. Let's not forget who the government is - you. You are paying people to buy more expensive fuel. So, when the truck stop lady in the commercial says that it's good for Arkansas what she means is that it is good for some Arkansas residents at the expense of others. You see right now biodiesel costs more than regular diesel. The government cannot make it cost less. They can change who pays for it, but the physical reality is that it costs more per mile.

It's not cheaper, but hey, at least we are less dependant on foreign oil. Well, not exactly. For one thing, as long as it is subsidized it will not lower our need for oil. Why? Because we still need the fuel from good old black gold in order to harvest the crops needed for biodiesel. Add this with the fact that the biodiesel is simply an additive (most of it is still regular) and we are really still needing crude.

A physical reality is that oil has more potential energy inside of it than anything else on the earth that we can get to in such great quantities. The best way for us to reduce our need for foreign oil is to increase the domestic oil that we are drilling. Go north, young man. Drill in Alaska. We have the resources we just need to go get them.

* -- Truckers can also be women but it is easier for me to just type "his" than type "his/her" or type "his or her" or to simply type "her", which might remind too many people of "Large Marge" from "Pee Wee's Big Adventure". Of course after taking the time to write this stupid side note it probably would have been better to just type "his or her". I love political correctness.

The MSMs are Partying Like it's 1,999

2005-10-25T08:05:00.000-07:00

The latest news story puts the death toll in Iraq at 1,999. Journalists everywhere are waiting with anxious expectation for the big number 2,000. Who knows, if they are lucky it will happen today. You can just see a slobbery Maureen Dowd watching the AP newsline waiting for the news that another brave soldier has died. Then let the Bush Bash Ball begin. Think of the excitement!! Calls for an exit strategy, Cindy Sheehan standing in front of the White House begging to be carted off by two husky men, pictures of the soldier who was number 2,000. It will be a glorious day for the media wing of the Democratic party.

Where are the news reports of the number of insurgents we have killed? What about giving some reports of the progress we have made? Where is the perspective? Not once have I seen a report on a major offensive that went off really well. Why is that? Is it that it isn't happening? Not according to the soldiers that are there. With few exceptions our soldiers are proud and optimistic about what is going on in Iraq.

So, to our MSM friends I say put away the party hats and get to some real journalism.

Rosa Parks: Cindy, This is How it is Supposed to be Done

2005-10-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

Sadly, Rosa Parks has passed away. Rosa Parks is a true hero of the Civil Rights movement. Because of her the culture has changed for the better. Her courage inspired the grass roots movements of the day, inspired the leadership of the Civil Rights movements and inspired change. To be sure, I don't agree with everything that Rosa Parks has said - but you have to admire her convictions and any right-thinking person would have to agree with her overall message. It saddens me to think that some people think of Cindy Sheehan as a "modern day Rosa Parks".

Thank you Mrs. Parks.

Anne Rice: Interview with the Savior?

2005-10-23T19:14:00.000-07:00

Anne Rice, the writer of many blood-filled novels about vampires such as "Interview with a Vampire", claims that she has recently accepted Christ as savior. I find this very exciting for three main reasons. The first reason is that, hallelujah, someone else has gotten saved. Secondly, as far as I can tell she won't be writing the garbage she used to write. I have read excerpts from some of her vampire books and they are almost pornographic and under a pseudonym she has written softcore smut. Thirdly, she is going to be doing some interesting things with her talents.

Rice is currently writing a book about Jesus when he was 7 years old. I have often wondered about this time of Jesus' life and it will be impossible for us to know whether what she is writing is anything close to what his life was actually like, but it it might be some interesting reading. I think it will be very important for her to be careful while writing this book. The holiness of Christ should not be tread on for sure, and it should not be tread around very lightly.

Praise God for one more in His Kingdom!!

Lottery: A Tax On People For Being Bad At Math

2005-10-19T21:49:00.000-07:00

Lotteries are one of those little things that, for the most part, are harmless but still drive me crazy. For one reason, just as the title of this Blog implies, lotteries are little more than another way for the government to take money from the people, i.e. a tax. Here are some of my criticisms.

1. You are not going to win. Some people think "hey, I will buy 9 or 10 tickets so my chances of winning are greater". This is actually a fallacy. While it is true that your chances are technically 10 times higher they are still not that much different (i.e. 1 in 35 million isn't much different from 100 in 35 million).

2. If you win it won't make you happy. Relationships get strained, your friends treat you differently, people are trying to leech money from you. This is very different than if you had earned the money yourself. Lottery winners commit suicide, divorce their spouses, get robbed, get arrested, go broke, become recluses, and in many other ways become miserable.

3. The lottery helps to spread the idea that it is a good thing to get something for nothing. We don't need any more of this in America. If hurricane Katrina helped us to learn anything about this it should be that doing anything to make people more dependent on the government is a really bad thing.

4. It takes money from poor people. Most of the people I work with/hang around with aren't hurt by the 1 or 2 dollars they may spend every now and then on the lottery. However, there are people in this world who, because they think it is their only shot in life, will spend $20 or $30 a week when the lottery gets big. A study showed that 20% of all lottery players comprise roughly 82% of lottery revenue and that the 20% was made up disproportionately of lower income people. The lottery truly is a way for the government to prey on the desperation of poorer people and it is despicable.

Deep Breath Time

2005-10-14T13:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President,
I am not completely happy with your choice of Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court. There are a lot of conservatives who are with me on this. However, I would like to thank you for working so hard to keep Americans everywhere safe from this man:

Thanks to Lucianne for helping me to remember this.

Chewbacca Becomes an American

2005-10-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

I know I said in my last post that I would get straight back to politics, but this is really funny. The actor who played Chewie is becoming an American citizen today.

When asked why he wanted to change citizenship he answered:

AARRRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRN.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Space Elevator

2005-10-13T06:39:00.000-07:00

OK, to take a small break from politics (which I don't like to do very often) I wanted to share with you guys something that I find to be very exciting that will make space travel easier and will show you all how much of a geek I really am. It is called a space elevator.

A space elevator is, in essence, a geosynchronous satellite that has a ribbon (probably about 1/2 mile wide) reaching from the satellite to the ground. This would allow us to travel up and down the ribbon to get into space.

Why is this helpful? Because the expensive (and most dangerous) part of space travel is getting outside of our atmosphere and back into it. Being able to traverse up a nanotube ribbon would make this much cheaper and less dangerous.

Furthermore, I had an idea about a different possibility. Since the actual station will be 62,000 miles away from earth why wouldn't we put a giant nuclear reactor at the end of the tether? This would give us an energy producing factory reducing our dependance on foreign oil. Furthermore, there would be nobody complaining about a reactor in their backyard. We could transport the energy via hydrogen fuel cells and the reactor could be what powers the elevator itself.

Anyway you can read more about a space elevator here, at Wikipedia.

OK, my next post will be back to politics - thanks for indulging me.

Al Gore: I Am Speechless (but I'll try)

2005-10-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

Once again let me just give my thoughts on what former Vice President had to say during his speech in Stockholm.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again"

Translation: I may, or may not, run.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us,"

True enough, but then again you probably wouldn't have gone to war against Afhganistan either. My money says that after 9/11 you would have been groveling at the feet of the Taliban asking their forgiveness for the fact that we have polluted their world.

"We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

I assume that you are referring to the tax cuts. Point of clarification: the tax cuts stopped the act of taking from one person and giving to another, they did not facilitate it.

"We would not be routinely torturing people"

You, sir, are ridiculous. When will the liberals stop denigrating the fine men and women of our military in order to take cheap political shots a George Bush?

Al Gore's Speech: Diatribe or Commercial?

2005-10-08T18:09:00.000-07:00

Al Gore went on (another) rant the other day. He called it "The Threat to American Democracy". His main point in this article is that ever since the MSM lost control of what you get to hear about, free speech has been in peril. This is very convenient for him to say because he has just put together a new TV station. Of course Mr. Gore takes the time to verbally jab the President. The following are some quotes from his rant with my comments

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered " an alternate universe"?

I have not heard one person say that. The only reason you are hearing this is because you do live in an alternate universe known as liberal elitism.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice?

Mr. Gore, please get this straight - nobody is as nice to their enemies as we are. Give it up.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans

I cannot believe that you used the coverage of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how things should be done. There is one reason for your assessment. In your mind Bush Bashing = good journalism. During Hurricane Katrina there were news reports of cannibalism, "bands of rapists, going block to block", gunfire, killed policemen, ten thousand dead. None of this turned out to be true. But, hey, if there is anything bad about Bush, then it's some goooooood reportin'.

The internet is a formidable new medium of communication, but it is important to note that it still doesn't hold a candle to television.

In other words, you still need my TV station.

And here is my point:

Finally.

it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.

Your reasoning is so backwards from reality that it is almost funny. There was a time - a golden age for liberals - when a very few sources controlled all of what was presented to the world as news. How is that a marketplace of ideas?

safeguards were enacted in the U.S. -- including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine

Again, your logic is flawed. You are literally arguing that restraints on free speech helped the marketplace of ideas.

though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

If you really believed in a marketplace of ideas, Mr. Gore, you wouldn't be so frightened of the ideas that are winning. There is a reason that your network, along with Air America, is failing. Nobody thinks they are worth listening to.

Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House

What he said may have angered the White House, but you left off that he used forged documents to accuse the President of something that never happened. The very thing you claim to be espousing, i.e. free speech, is what brought Dan Rather down. there was a time when he could have gotten away with his underhanded pratices, that time is gone.

Later he basically goes on to say that his new station is what America needs, blah blah blah.

Read this speech, but don't be fooled by it.

Bill Bennet Wants Black People to Die

2005-10-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

Here is some of what Bill Bennett said:

if "you wanted to reduce crime ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

Obviously Bill Bennett is a racist who wants to see us kill all black people. There is no other possible explanation for why he would express a desire to see black people die. This is why Mr. Bennett is such a strong supporter of the president. Any man who can send a hurricane to kill blacks is a friend of Bennett's. I am appalled at the insensitivity that Bennett has shown during this time of racial tension. Never before have blacks been so discriminated against as they are now and this guy is saying that we should kill black babies, er uh fetuses (feti?, no it's fetuses).

Well, that was fun. I can see why everybody in the media is doing this. It's so cool to take a guy's words out of context, make them mean the complete opposite of what they were intended to mean by leaving off the beginning, the end and, with the help of three magical dots (...), even the middle.

Here is a direct quote from Al Gore's recent speech Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger:

"I am convinced that ... we must ... support ... Osama bin Laden ... and ... 9/11 ... was ... patriotic"

So, it is obvious from this quote that Al Gore is supporting OBL - I am apalled.

Hey, it's like journalistic Mad Libs, here's another one from Al Gore:

"I ... like ... men"

The simple fact is that anyone criticizing Bill Bennett's words are obviously trying to misquote and malign the man. Bill Bennett was explaining to one of his callers that you can't use the consequences of abortion to argue that it is evil. Here is the full transcript:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at
all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Please notice Bill's words that this would be "ridiculous, and morally reprehensible". If Bill Bennett had his way there would be no black babies aborted.

The following is the best I have read on this subject:
The Bennett libel divides decent Left from indecent Left

Interesting Article on Harriet Miers

2005-10-05T06:42:00.000-07:00

I don't have a lot of time, but I did read an interesting article about Harriet Miers.

Let me know what you think:

In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void - The New York Times

Questions Abound in Miers Appointment

2005-10-03T19:01:00.000-07:00

Well, here it is. President Bush has made his pick. People are asking me what I think of Harriet Miers. The answer is a resounding "I don't know". I have to admit that at first I was really disappointed. There are plenty of people to whom Bush could have given the nod (ahem, Janice Rogers Brown) and yet he went with someone from his staff.

My fear is that this appointment was made because of his fear of a fight. I wanted President Bush to tell the Democrats that he doesn't care what they want, he is going to pick the right person for the job. It's not that I think Miers is bad, it's that I don't know. I wanted certainty, not more back and forth like with Roberts. Of course it is possible that President Bush would simply tell me that he doesn't care what I think, he is going to pick the right person for the job.

I was definitely encouraged by what I read at the American Center for Law and Justice and at World Magazine's Blog. Yet, there are questions. She gave money to Gore. I can't get that out of my head. She gave money to Gore! Everyone has lapses in judgment but good grief she GAVE MONEY TO GORE!!

OK, I have counted to 10 and am ready to go on. Here is the problem - this whole confirmation process will be an attempt to keep every conservative leaning that Miers has on the down low. It's going to be impossible to know what kind of justice she will be until she is actually doing the job.

Mr. President I hope that you have not let us down.

Here are some links that will help you make your own decisions:

Pro:
Dobson Endorses Miers - this is a big one
American Center for Law and Justice - these guys are awesome. Anyone they endorse can't be too bad.
Miers Led Bid to Revisit Abortion Stance
World Magazine's Blog

Con:
William Kristol is Not Happpy
Harry Reid is Happy
Rush called it a "pick made from weakness"
Plus, she gave money to - oh, never mind.

Please Mr. President, Don't Back Down Now

2005-09-29T19:10:00.000-07:00

Last year's election had me in knots, not in a small part because of the probable appointment of Supreme Court Nominees. President Bush's first pick was good but not great. I fully support the President and I think Chief Justice Roberts will be a solid judge, however, I don't want another pick like him. It has nothing to do with my confidence in Judge Roberts. As a matter of fact I am not against a Roberts-like pick, I just really want a more solidly conservative pick.

Now, it appears that part of what will motivate President Bush's pick will be gender and/or ethnicity. A large portion of the country is expecting a woman or a minority. That's great because there is a great pick who is both - Janice Rogers Brown. Maybe it's just that I was really looking for a fight with Chief Justice Rogers that never materialized. Such a fight would assuredly happen with a pick as staunchly conservative as Judge Brown. But reading what she has said has brought me to the conclusion that she is a wonderful pick.

My request to my president is that he stay strong and that he not worry about what the liberals have to say regarding his pick. You and Senator Kerry were both clear about the type of judges you would pick and the people made their choice.

Blunt Picked to Replace DeLay

2005-09-28T14:33:00.000-07:00

U.S. Rep Roy Blunt was picked by Republicans to be the majority leader. Roy Blunt used to be the president of my Alma Mater, Southwest Baptist University.

Dan, It's Time to Go

2005-09-28T13:47:00.000-07:00

I grow weary of Dan Rather. He simply cannot admit his mistake. Dan, it's over, the jury is in and you screwed up. It was not a conspiracy by conservative bloggers, the document has been proven false and you are a political hack.

Rathergate is why I love the internet. It used to be in the old days if you saw something on TV that you thought was kind of suspicious you pretty much thought to yourself "hmmm, that seems suspicious". Now you have a community of people out there checking facts. Mary Mapes sees the speed with which the Bush National Guard memo was debunked and immediately calls conspiracy. I see the same thing and call incompetence on her part. If the internet community could spot (and prove) a fake so quickly why couldn't her team. The fact is that they did spot the fake. Mapes and Rather decided to ignore it. After all, that is how things have worked for the liberal media over the last 50 years.

The blogging community has put the mouthpiece of liberal ideology on the run, and it's fun to watch.

A Great Author

2005-09-27T20:05:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite authors. Check out his weekly column.

Cindy: Havin' Fun

2005-09-26T17:44:00.000-07:00

Check out the story of Cindy Sheehan getting arrested. The thing is she's smiling like a couple of hefty football players are helping her into her car.

Step 1: Be a part of a fake "anti-war" protest that is supposedly a peaceful march on the White House
Step 2: Do something that you know is going to get you arrested
Step 3: Profit

Through the years there have been many people who engaged in civil disobedience in order to bring about social change. These people knowingly put themselves in harm's way because they believed in something. Cindy is pretending to put herself in harms way because she is against somebody, namely President Bush.

Thank God people like Cindy are now in charge of the Democrats. It will make '06 a good year.

First Post

2005-09-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here is my first post. Feel free to add a comment and let me know you stopped by.