So Mitt would make solving Michigan’s economic woes his top priority as President. Makes him sound like our next Governor of Michigan or if you really take him seriously Governor of Michigan/President of the rest of the US when he can spare the time. And what’s his solution?

 

Well convene a commission in Washington DC to address the woes of the auto industry of course. Just what the world’s champion of free enterprise and democracy needs-a central government, inside the beltway commission telling a private sector industrial complex how to compete. Sheer genius; I know I’ll sleep better at night.

 

I’m sorry but this guy will say anything to get elected. He was against abortion before he was for it (briefly to get elected in Massachusetts) and then, presto, against it again. He and his dad marched with Dr. King, then he saw his dad march with Dr. King and then, caught out, he wants us all to understand his definition of ‘saw’ in an all too Clintonesque fashion. And now he’s going to be the new Michigan governor.

 

I don’t trust this guy as far as I can throw him. And I suspect that wouldn’t be too far given how slippery he is. We need real, principled leadership, not a different story to suit each audience. If we go into the general election with this guy as our standard bearer we can count on them taking him apart just as did Bush with John Kerry. He’s an embarrassment and we need to get past him and his money.

So here is my cut on who should and should not win the nomination for Republican candidate for the Presidency. I will not go into how they will win or who they have in their hip pocket to help them along. I’m simply looking at what is now available to the average Joe Blow voter with respect to their positions and values.

 

Huckabee

            This ordained minister has already made the point that he wants to take back America for Christ. I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again; from whom is he going to take America and just why are those he is taking America from not entitled to exactly the same rights and freedoms as Christians? And, of course, when push comes to shove will he be more beholden to his ordination or to his oath of office as President should there be a conflict between the needs of the office and vows of ordination? Proudly taking that ordination with him into the Presidency is not appropriate nor in the spirit and intent of the framers when they purposed the establishment clause. We have enough trouble in the world today as a result of overzealous faith without burdening the Presidency with it as well.

 

Thompson

I don’t have any idea why he’s in it except that a bunch of supposed experts told him he could win.

 

Giuliani

One of the most experienced executives in the race. Clearly demonstrated during the aftermath of 9/11 but also in how he governed prior to 9/11 in New York in cleaning up the streets, reducing crime and reducing well fare rolls. Also reduced taxes and has a strong position on the war on terror. Also much more moderate and could garner those swing voters that could easily sink a Hillary effort. Rudy may be the best choice.

 

McCain

McCain-Feingold, immigration ‘reform’ and his position on tax breaks for the ‘rich’. He’s a liberal masquerading as a conservative. I do admire his directness and openness about his positions; while I may disagree with him, trusting that you know what someone is going to do does have value. His positions may be a problem for social conservatives but they also make McCain another candidate who can garner those swing votes. The question is do we want to put forth a candidate who is the lesser of two evils?

 

Romney

Not only did he see his dad march with Dr. King but he and his dad also marched with Dr. King! And he was against abortion before he was for it before he was against it…I’m getting dizzy. I don’t think I have any idea what this guy stands for except the need to get elected. At the you-tube debate he responded to the question of gays in the military as something we don’t need to address now but we could revisit it at a less stressful time for the military. This from someone who apparently does not understand that a major part of the Presidency is being Commander in Chief. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

 

 

And the winners are:

So for my money the best candidates, those who can be trusted to do the job, whose positions we can trust to be stable and who have no conflicts with religious obligations are McCain and Giuliani. And for my money its Giuliani.

            I have written here before that Romney’s pro-abortion stance during his run for Governor of Massachusetts, given the Mormon church position on abortion, was a ploy to get elected and that rather than an epiphany in office that changed him to a staunch pro-lifer he simply reverted to his long held true beliefs abandoned ever so briefly for political convenience. Well, his Martin Luther King fabrication goes right down that same path.  From the Boston Globe: “Mitt Romney went a step further in 1978 with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”

            Not only did he never personally march with Martin Luther King apparently his father never did either. In his other fabrication, that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King, he now wants us all to redefine ‘saw’ not unlike the Clintonesque parsing of the meaning of ‘is’. We don’t really need to burden our nation, in this most important office, with another man to whom the truth is a seldom visited nuisance useful only if in so using it your cause is advanced.

            This man is a crass opportunist who has absolutely no place in the ranks of those seeking the presidency. He should stop immediately. If anyone who has endorsed him persists in that endorsement then you have the measure of them as well.

           Given the current stir about Huckabee and religion I thought it might be a good time to fully understand just what the ‘establishment clause’ is all about. The clause is part of the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution and addresses freedom of religion as follows:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” 

 

So what does that mean and what was the intent of Founding Fathers in writing those words into the very 1^st Amendment? Did it simply mean that we are a Christian nation but we don’t want the Anglicans’ to have sway over the Baptists or was it better thought out and intelligent than that?

 

            In 1779 Thomas Jefferson, in support of his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, and a full 12 years before the Bill of Rights was written into our laws, wrote the following:

 

Whereas Almighty God has created the mind FREE (my emphasis), so that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose NOT (my emphasis) to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his almighty power to do; that the impious presumptions of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them others, has established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world”.

 

It does go on further and addresses a law to prohibit the state from requiring contributions for religions among other issues and is a document from which Madison would later write the 1^st Amendment establishment clause. It is interesting to note that Mr. Jefferson was a Deist. An even casual reading of this shows that Jefferson believed that God created each of us with a free mind, free, as Thomas Paine would have it, to allow each of us to make peace with God in our own way. From Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason’:

 

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.”

 

And that Church in his own mind surely houses the religion Jefferson refers to in “the Holy Author of our religion”. It is the religion of our own making, derived from our own God given powers of Reason, individual and unassailable by any intrusion by the State.

 

            Madison, another Deist in the Paine mold, in his formal presentation of the Amendments to the Constitution in 1789, wrote the following:

 

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or in pretext, infringed.”

 

            To those who firmly believe that the United States was established as and remains a Judeo Christian nation with certain obligations to sustain that tradition despite the 1^st Amendment I say you make arguments of convenience not fact.  The Founding Fathers, especially those who authored and inspired our founding documents, were Deists, professed faith in no religion but the one that populated the ‘Church of their own minds’ and that the wisdom of their efforts to assure that church and state are indeed separate, as their words clearly attest, should not be lightly overturned to suit the popular revelation of the moment.

            Which brings us to Mr. Huckabee; he remains an ordained minister and he made an impassioned plea to his fellow ministers that they must ‘wake up and take America back for Christ’. Obviously the Founding Fathers had no intent of willing America to Christ to begin with but one must surely ask, if America is to be taken back from whom will it be taken? And what of the rights of those from whom it is taken? And what America would Mr. Huckabee choose to put in place of that which the Founding Fathers established 231 years ago and which has apparently done very well without Mr. Huckabee’s need to revise it.

            We further do not need Mr. Huckabee’s commitment to his current and binding ordination to follow him clanking and banging like Marley’s chain ‘forged in life’, to conflict with his oath as President and with which to burden American’s not of his belief. 

 
    
                 
        

 

            So Hillary is one of the most experienced candidates in the race. Boy. Just where does that come from?

            She has held no elected office but Senator from New York and there are not a whole lot of stunning legislative achievements coming out of that. So just where does that experience come from?

            There seems to be a strong desire to equate the fact that she was First Lady with the actual job of the President. Unfortunately she was not the President. While she may have stuck her nose into the travel office, with very suspect results, and headed up the ill fated effort to revamp healthcare in America it is quite clear from the results that with that evidence in hand she did not exhibit any competence that would qualify her for the Presidency. But there could be more there than we know. How do we get at those facts so necessary to understanding that she was much more a part of Bill’s Presidency than appears to the case?

            Well there are those records in Bill’s library that, if released, would give us all insight into her, thus far, less than stellar qualifications. But for some unknown reason Bill is not letting those out. Why the reluctance to help her enhance her position?

            One of two obvious answers leaps to mind. First, of course, is that those records are far from flattering and rather than enhance her reputation they might well achieve the exact opposite. The second is that while we might see her playing a significant role that might equip her for President, depending on your opinion of the results, such experience would bring into question exactly what Bill was doing if Hill had to play such an important part in his Presidency. More importantly we’d have to question how someone who was not elected and did not take the oath of office could assume such an important role. What we are left to believe is that somehow, bereft of any evidence to support the idea, Hill has experience. Why?

            Because Bill says so? A man prohibited from practicing law in his home state and from presenting before the Supreme Court because he lied under oath might not be the best source for any reliable information.

            Because she says so? Absent those pesky records there is really nothing to go on but her word for it.

            Because the press repeats the unsupportable in the hopes that a fabrication repeated often enough will take on the aura of a truth? Any sensible person should be suspicious of anything coming from the established traditional press.

            The bottom line is that she is not the most qualified candidate or anything close to it.  She’s Bill’s wife and a participant in enough scandals during his Presidency to be readily discounted as candidate for anything. God help us all should this blatant opportunist somehow become our President.

            Every time I get to the point that I start liking Mike Huckabee I come back to his religiosity. First and foremost is his ‘taking back America for Christ’ quote from an address to a Southern Baptist convention. To take it back you must necessarily take from, so my problem is from whom is he taking our nation?

            While Mike is a Christian he is the Baptist version. He is not the Lutheran, Catholic or Mormon version. And beyond the Christianity thing is the fact that we do have folks here in this country who are not Christians and, oh by the way, a Constitution that will not tolerate government involving itself in such matters as taking back America for Christ. To those who say that he can separate his religion from his governing of the nation we must remember that his religiosity is faith based. He denies evolution based on that faith; this faith does not tolerate a conflict between fact and faith to be won by fact. And to those who would say that all of our presidents have been men of faith I must point out that while they may all have gone to church while in office I submit that they are also pragmatists who governed from the practical not from the tenets of their faith. An ordained minister is coming from a decidedly different place. So from whom is he taking our nation for Christ?

            Consider that as a Baptist minister he must be so much more immersed in the fundamentals (no pun intended) of his faith and so much more committed to them that he cannot reasonably be expected not to fall back on this faith in his decision making. Take his positions on illegal immigrant children and his record of pardoning criminals. While the underlying desire to always believe that all human beings have the capacity for good if only given the chance and that we should all be willing to turn the other cheek, the big nasty world he would need to confront as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the worlds most powerful nation (and biggest target) is populated by lots of folks who never had nor never will have any desire to act or behave in a reasonable, humane or respectful manner towards their fellow human beings. Men like Adolf Hitler, Saddam and Osama are not folks we have to forgive and extend a second chance to; given that chance they will (or would) make every effort to repeat the sins of the past with the addition of lessons learned, not the least of which is that you can count on that second chance.

            And further the following from an interview by Roger Simon on August 9^th in Iowa: “I asked him if he is still a Baptist minister — many profiles of him say he “was” a Baptist minister — and he replied, “I am one.” Then he added with a smile: “They haven’t defrocked me.” So what is a Baptist Minister? Read on”

 

From the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting, resolution with respect to illegal immigration:

 

RESOLVED, That we urge citizen Christians to follow the biblical principle of caring for the foreigners among us (Deuteronomy 24:17-22) and the command of Christ to be a neighbor to those in need of assistance (Luke 10:30-37), regardless of their racial or ethnic background, country of origin, or legal status; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage Christian churches to act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants, to start English classes on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward the path of legal status and/or citizenship; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to make the most of the tremendous opportunity for evangelism and join our Master on His mission to seek and save those who are lost (Luke 19:10) among the immigrant population to the end that these individuals might become both legal residents of the United States and loyal citizens of the Kingdom of God.

 

Sure seems to align with his policy of be nice to illegals and spend our tax dollars on their benefits. Not done yet-what follows is part of the process of ordination:

 

THE COVENANT AND CODE OF ETHICS
for Ministerial Leaders of American Baptist Churches

Having accepted God’s call to leadership in Christ’s Church, I covenant with God to serve Christ and the Church with, the help of the holy spirit, to deepen my obedience to the Two Great Commandments: to love the Lord our God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself.

In affirmation of this commitment, I will abide by the Code of Ethics of the Ministers Council of the American Baptist Churches and I will faithfully support its purposes and ideals. As further affirmation of my commitment, I covenant with my colleagues in ministry that we will hold one another accountable for fulfillment of all the public actions set forth in our Code of Ethics.

• I will hold in trust the traditions and practices of our American Baptist Churches; I will not accept a position in the American Baptist family unless I am in accord with those traditions and practices; nor will I use my influence to alienate my congregation/constituents or any part thereof from its relationship and support of the denomination. If my convictions change, I will resign my position.
• I will respect and recognize the variety of calls to ministry among my American Baptist colleagues, and other Christians.
• I will seek to support all colleagues in ministry by building constructive relationships wherever I serve, both with the staff where I work and with colleagues in neighboring churches.
• I will advocate adequate compensation for my profession. I will help lay persons and colleagues to understand that ministerial leaders should not expect or require fees for pastoral services from constituents they serve, when these constituents are helping pay their salaries.
• I will not seek personal favors or discounts on the basis of my ministerial status.
• I will maintain a disciplined ministry in such ways as keeping hours of prayers and devotion, endeavoring to maintain wholesome family relationships, sexual integrity, financial responsibility, regularly engaging in educational and recreational activities for ministerial and personal development. I will seek to maintain good health habits.
• I will recognize my primary obligation to the church or employing group to which I have been called, and will accept added responsibilities only if they do not interfere with the overall effectiveness of my ministry.
• I will personally and publicly support my colleagues who experience discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, age, marital status, national origin, physical impairment or disability.
• I will not proselytize from other Christian churches.
• I will, upon my resignation or retirement, sever my ministerial leadership relations with my former constituents, and will not make ministerial contacts in the field of another ministerial leader without his/her request and/or consent.
• I will hold in confidence and treat as confidential communication any information provided to me with the expectation of privacy. I will not disclose such information in private or public except when, in my practice of ministry, I am convinced that the sanctity of confidentiality is outweighed by my well-founded belief that life-threatening or substantial harm will be caused.
• I will not use my ministerial status, position or authority knowingly to abuse, misguide, negatively influence, manipulate, or take advantage of anyone, especially children.
• I will report all instances of abuse as required by law to the appropriate agency. In any case involving persons working in ABC ministry, I will also report the circumstances to the appropriate regional and/or national denominational representative.
• I will show my personal love for God as revealed in Jesus Christ in my life and ministry, as I strive together with my colleagues to preserve the dignity, maintain the discipline and promote the integrity of the vocation to which we have been called.

Signed_________________________________Date_________________________________

Amended 10/2004

 

 

My question to discerning voters, and to Mr. Huckabee, is should a conflict exist between his oath to his faith as an ordained minister conflict with the oath he must take as President-which will carry the day? I believe he must resign his ministry to be our President. To do otherwise puts him squarely at odds with the clear intent of the1^st Amendment. That intent is that no religion shall have dominance in our political affairs and while our Presidents will always have some religious affiliation an ordained minister with sworn duties goes well beyond the commitment of a casual church goer.

1.	Abortion Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Gospel Library > Gospel Topics
2.	Abortion Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions. The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Public Issues
3.	Policies and Procedures: Statement on Abortion Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality. Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. Gospel Library > Magazines > New Era > April 1973

 

The above are from the LDS official website and given in response to a search on the word abortion. The point is to determine what the background is to Mitt’s switch on abortion. It dawned on me that a good Mormon going into the gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts might have been FOR abortion rights as a convenience and went BACK to his real position for this Presidential primary race. Given the above long standing position on abortion it seems realistic that a good Mormon as Mitt would have us believe his is would not have and could not have supported abortion up to his becoming governor and for the first time having to confront the issue of life in legislation presented to him for signature. Does that mean we should all be assured that he really always was against Abortion? NO-it means we should be deeply concerned about a man who’ll change his position to suit the situation.

 

I may not like some of McCain’s positions and I may not like Huckabee’s denial of science where it conflicts with his faith but I have to respect both men for standing on principle regardless of the consequences. I cannot say the same for Romney and I have to add his inability to state his position on principle his obviously contorted position on the question of gays in the military. Huckabee and McCain had no problem stating their positions quickly and simply but Romney, absent a poll or carefully vetted response, fumbled, mumbled and embarrassed himself. He is NOT genuine, unless genuinely phony works for you.

I’ve listened to Mike Huckabee in small doses and I like what I hear. He’s actually quit refreshing until you examine his positions a little more closely. The underpinning of his weakness as a President is his position on evolution. He says he does not know for sure how it all happened but God did it, it took 6 periods of some sort of time and man’s existence is not traceable to an evolutionary process but instead just bloomed on the scene. This is based on his religious faith. Hard facts and rational thought are often the victims of faith. The Islamic terrorists who blow themselves up in the middle of crowds of children have absolute faith that they are doing the right thing. The fact that these children have done them no harm and could grow up to be of enormous benefit to mankind carries no weight in their decision-they kill based on faith alone. Faith is not the friend of reason nor of decisions that require pragmatism.

 

Mr. Huckabee’s position on immigration is an extension of his reliance on faith and lack of logical thinking. He believes that illegals in this country are deserving of educational benefits that legals have not only paid for but might not be able to provide to their children because of the illegal’s competition. The ‘logic’ from Mr. Huckabee is that we should not punish the children for the sins of the parents. My answer is don’t punish the children of legal parents for the sins of illegal parents. By Mr. Huckabee’s logic all the children of the world, if they could somehow sneak into the country, must taken under wing because they are innocent victims. That’s the logical extension of Mr. Huckabee’s position but he is operating from non-rational, non-logical perceptions based assuredly on the same faith that has him denying the scientific evidence of evolution. God only knows what other critical issues he would deal with through the very warped prism of his faith.

 

Faith, as I said before, is the enemy of reason and pragmatism. We need the leader of the most powerful nation on earth to be a person capable of the best possible reasoning powers and capable of making the pragmatic decisions that secure our nations continued success in the world. A man who would deny science and fact in favor of his faith has no place in the presidency.

“What else do you need? If you like weird America, this i Potato Days: Barnesville Ah, the feeling of potatoes in your trousers. What else do you need?”

 

            This is from the introduction to the youtube.com website as found on MSN Live Search. Now this may be well and good for the democrats to lure their voting constituency and it may well be perfectly aligned with the desire of liberal media such as CNN to portray Republican’s as buffoons and dancing bears but for serious conservative voters it is a tremendous disservice, thoroughly diminishes the office the President and is utterly insulting. And make no mistake-there is no fault CNN or the liberals taking advantage of this format to press their anti-conservative agenda. More power to them. It is the Republicans allowing this to happen that are at fault.

            First and foremost it must be understood that these primaries are about each party selecting it’s candidate. So the debates, first and foremost, should be focused on addressing the voters necessary to select each party’s candidate that will then, in the general election, run against the other party’s candidate. Having a debate run by a hard core representative of the opposition party is not a good way to impress or sway your party’s voters or address issues of concern and importance to the conservative constituency. While failing utterly to impress one’s own voters it is also a golden opportunity for the opposition to pre-define a candidate or candidates before the general election ever starts in ways that are unfair and deceptive. Time enough for that in the general election.

            Secondly we must consider that the President of the United States is arguably the most important public official in the world. The selection of such an important person should be treated with utmost seriousness and the voting public should expect that not only are the debates, both primary and general, serious events but also events that reflect the seriousness of the position and the seriousness of the process required to select the President. The Youtube format does far more to diminish and trivialize the presidency than anything else. Moreover it makes a clear statement to the serious voting public that candidates participating in such nonsense hold these serious voters in very low regard.

            I cannot fathom what possible benefit Republican candidates think they derive during a PRIMARY in subjecting themselves to this sort of demeaning and trivializing non-sense. I left the Republican Party in total disgust at the apparent desire of the leadership of this party to try to appear more Democrat and liberal than the democrats. I’m a conservative and I expect conservative leadership. That means candidates who respect serious voters and who honor the importance of the office they seek by refusing to indulge in CNN/YouTube garbage.

            Those who lend credibility to the youtube debate nonsense and to the trivialization of the process and the serious voters who would select them do not deserve our support. It is time for someone to step up and contrast themselves from the liberal field and that includes letting the democrats play these childish games in their own primaries while conservative candidate distinguish themselves from the liberals by elevating the pursuit of this most important office and refusing to stoop to this sort of nonsense.

Who are we? How do we American’s define ourselves and what values and virtues do we hold forth as defining us to each other and the world at large? And more importantly, how does this affect our upcoming 2008 elections at this very critical point in history?

 

First and foremost we are a nation that has little in common with the homogeneity to be found in other nations of the world. The French, the Japanese or the British by and large have generations of history, language and cultural distinction that define them. American’s are somewhat dissimilar in that we are a hodgepodge of German and African and Chinese and so many others all mixed up and stewed together. So what values, virtues and characteristics do we carry forward that make us not Indian or Swedish or Columbian but instead American?

 

The answer lies, I believe, in our founding as a nation. Though they were only words at their writing, they were words that lay the foundation for a dream that could be and ultimately would be realized by anyone of any color, religion, gender or ethnicity. It was the dream articulated by our Founding Fathers in our Declaration of Independence.

 

            “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

 

In these words we see a separation by those then in America from the British government. But we also see them setting themselves apart from any other nation as well. Whether French, Dutch, German or British they were now American’s, a new and separate nation of people who share, instead of tradition and language, a dream. And it is a dream founded on equality as articulated in the phrase ‘the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them’. The dream is simply stated:

           

“ We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

 

That one sentence has set a standard for everything else that followed. That one sentence holds the answer to who we are as a people. It has set us apart for centuries and it is that which has drawn so many people of many diverse nationalities, religions and diverse cultures to come to America.

 

The bold assertion that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights’ sets our nation apart in a very substantive way and also binds us together in a very unique way. No one could possibly argue that the goal implied in that sentence was immediately achieved. It took long years of struggle and a civil war just to begin to fulfill that dream for African Americans. Even today we still see vestiges of bias in use of quotas and affirmative action which do far less to elevate minorities and far more to stigmatize them as incapable of success without extra help. But each decade that passes we get better at the realization of the goal set forth in that sentence. Yet that equality so boldly asserted and which has been the source of much struggle and contention down through the centuries does not imply we are all equal in accomplishment or outcome. It implies only that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed. How is that set forth in this most simple of sentences?

 

The word pursuit means to me that I have a God given right to the opportunity to pursue my best outcome regardless of who I am. That outcome is up to me-no one else. Pursuit does not imply a guarantee nor an assurance of outcome. It only states that those who are part of the ‘one People” who dissolved our bands and assumed ‘the powers of the Earth’ to ourselves have an unquestioned right to the pursuit of happiness.  

 

The nation that grew up out of that simple declaration is a nation that prides itself on the independence of its citizens. That image of an independent, hardworking person coming from the meanest of beginnings to succeed is not just a romantic concept. It is realized over and over again in a nation where a poor black child sent off to his grandparents to be raised on a farm with no indoor plumbing can rise to become a Justice of the Supreme Court. It is a nation where men and women from foreign countries can come to our shores, find success and acceptance and ultimately move into powerful political positions as is the case with Governor Schwarztenagger. Where else in the world are such things not only possible but expected? But our nation is never at rest and changes are constantly taking place that could cause us to be more successful but which could also cause a decline in our great nation. What could cause a decline?

 

The answer lies with the fact that we all have the unfortunate disadvantage of being members of the human race. And that human race comes with a dazzling array of strengths and weaknesses. It is those weaknesses that are preyed upon by those who would gain and keep power over the rest of us. One of the major weaknesses is simple greed. Properly harnessed and put to use in a responsible way it is the cornerstone of our free enterprise economic system. But it can be the tool by which those seeking power can slowly but surely subjugate us as well.

 

Communism and socialism are based on the Karl Marx concept of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It does sound wonderful and giving and enlightened and generous doesn’t it? But for it to work everyone must be doing their level best, with the caveat that no matter how much you may produce it will be shared equally with other lesser producers. In the communist model, and in the socialist model as well, the balance between the each according to his ability and the each according to his need is managed by a benevolent government that sees to everyone’s needs. But the concept has flaws obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of human nature. With out the ever present need to take care of ourselves, which can occur when people are led to believe that they are entitled to the fruits of others labors, the folks will get lazy and begin to believe that they are entitled to support for different aspects of their lives. The growth of such entitlements is how the power hungry slowly but surely make enough of us slaves to the entitlement that we will help keep in power those who ‘give’ us our entitlements. When all is said and done those who give the entitlement must have someone to support the entitlement because government does not have its own resources and therefore it must take from producers to give to those who are ‘entitled’. How does this affect America?

 

We see in the current Presidential campaign a proliferation of entitlements as inducements to garner votes. If those entitlements were ever to be realized there would be an enormous increase in the need for funds by the federal government and that money can only come from one place-those who create wealth OR those viewed as incapable of protecting themselves from unfair government taxation. Examples:

 

The Child Health care law that was just defeated is a prime example. A law intended to help children whose parents cannot afford health care was to be dramatically expanded to include many parents who can afford the insurance but who would surely drop that insurance if they could get it from the government. Who was to pay? Cigarette smokers, a minority in our society and predominantly lower income would have their cigarettes taxed to pay for it. First and foremost the expansion of the program to include those already covered is a simple effort to buy votes and is unacceptable on its face. But far worse is the wholly un-American abuse of an underrepresented minority to pay for this program. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation and this is that very same thing-picking the minority whose habit we don’t particularly like and abusing them financially for issues and causes unrelated.

 

One of the candidates is on record as stating that she would take ‘excess’ profits from the oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. This borders on the nationalization of an industry. Since when does any government know better than the private sector how to pursue improvements in products and services? The idea is simply laughable-unless you are Cesar Chavez or Vladamir Putin.

 

Should we continue to elect those willing to offer us the biggest bribes, we can expect their need to fund their programs to extend to more and more minority groups in our society. Today it is cigarette smokers. Tomorrow it may be SUV drivers or folks who drive too far to work. In the end our precious independence will become victim to need to sustain and grow the blossoming entitlements. What to do?

 

I believe that we must limit government as much as possible. Its intrusion into our lives must be kept to an absolute minimum consistent with its need to provide for national security, basic infrastructure and be the minimum glue necessary to bind our nation together. If there is need for programs like the child healthcare program then it should be limited to those really in need and we should ALL pay for it. And we should certainly leave our private sector alone to do what it does best-move science and technology along to the betterment of mankind unfettered by government tinkering.

 

We were founded and grew great as the independent and self reliant people best defined by that simple sentence that set us free as a people and a nation “We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Each and everyone one of us free to pursue our desired goals, free to make bad decisions, free to suffer the consequences without burdening others of us who are also freely pursuing our goals. Free to fail, free to try again and free to succeed unfettered and unconstrained by government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. Free as well to reach out to our fellow citizens who may have stumbled and help lift them up again, not by government mandate, but the charity in our hearts that always hereto sufficed. A Free and independent and hardworking people just like those who have gone before to make America Great.

 

We need elected officials who understand who we are when we are at our best and who will help to assure that our nation remains strong by limiting government tinkering in our lives. Such elected officials are not trying to buy your votes with freedom sapping entitlements. If we want to remain the America that our founders envisioned, that our ancestors have fought and died to preserve and that is currently the greatest nation the world has ever known we need to get back to our core values and dismiss that which is un-American.

So Al Gore has won the Nobel Prize. Good God how silly and how diminishing of an award that once meant something. Let's examine the inconvenient truth.

1. His film can only be shown in British schools after disclaimers are made to children regarding numerous statements that are misleading at best and certainly not based on any evidence or accepted science. Begs the question-why make such inaccurate statements if you are truley trying to convince the public of a real problem? Either you don't know what you're talking about or you have no respect for your audience and you beleive anything you say will be taken as truth and not questioned.
2. Mr. Gore admonishes the rest of us to conserve and cut back while he jets about the globe in private planes, owns homes whose consumption of precious resources the rest of us could only dream of and wouldn't know an electric car from an exercise bike.
3. He appears to be eating enough food products to feed the starving of the Darfur region.

The judge in the British case that put the restraints on the showing of his film also made the point that his case for global warming is now largely accepted science which of course is not at all the case. The U.N. commission in testimony hastily held before congress this year made some amazing admissions:

1. The gentleman whose expertise is glaciers when asked what all the various changes in glaciers meant, including some that are expanding, answered that he DIDN'T KNOW what it meant. I personally heard the testimony. If a leading scientist in the field of glaciation doesn't know what all this means how in the hell can a washed up, near do well political hack like Gore possibly claim to know more?

2.  The panel when asked if dessenting opinions had been included in their final report responded that such opinions had been received and were stored back at the U.N. if anyone wanted to see them. Seems from that that the report and the commission are focused on what they were hired to do which is report on global warming and not muddy the waters with any other thinking of equal stature but NOT in line with the desires of those who pay their grants.

There are a number of scientific groups including Climatologists who are not at all convinced we have a looming  climate catostrophe aviodable only by human intervention. Witness:

1. There is evidence that the we are actually moving into a cooling phase. Perhaps one like the one in 1975 that had the fear mongers warning of a new ice age.
2. Greenland melting, as Gore predicts in his movie, was reality less than 2000 years ago. The Vikings settled Greenland at that time and named it Greenland because it was a forested island that supported agriculture and the raising of livestock. They subsequently disappeared out of Greenland as the tempuratures cooled and Greenland became too inhospitable for them to survive. Less than 2000 years ago. Warmed up and cooled off and no cumbustion engines. Now how did THAT happen??
3. There was a mini ice age in the 1300s in Europe that is well documented. Our views of warming and cooling cannot be myopic or narrowly focused. We really must view the warming and cooling trends of our little globe over a much large time frame to truley understand what's going on.

That said it is always good to conserve. I certianly do the best I can, not only to save me money, but also to do my best to take funds out of the hands of those who fund Global terrorism in the Middle East. But to take mandatory actions that could seriously harm the world's economy is nonsense. And to take such direction from a man whose personal excesses could only be described as criminal ,if indeed we have the crisis he promotes, is incredibly foolish. Rewarding such a hippocrit is even more foolish.

What is a bad religion? Are they all bad or only some? What differentiates? Have some outgrown badness?

 

The core of the question is really what is a bad faith? This is because religion cannot exist without faith. And by faith I mean the interpretation of the intangible (feelings, emotions. etc.) instead of the physically tangible. "Believe in order that you may understand" said St. Augustine but in reality religions don’t want you to understand, just believe.  Religions rely on the desire to believe that some set of circumstances exists so that they may have the leverage to promote themselves. Religions do not, so far as I can perceive, rely on the existence of empirical evidence. Are all faiths based on the unprovable and intangible?

 

Some adherents of some religions will point to certain historical facts to support the contention that their religion is based on fact and not on intangibles. While, for instance, there may be a record of a man called Jesus living and dying by crucifixion in Israel, that does not have anything to do with his being the son of God. Unlike Mohammed and his Koran Jesus never put pen to paper so we don’t know, except by handed down stories, if he ever made that claim. And while the claim that he was scourged and crucified may be backed up with some historical evidence thousands of political dissidents of that time were killed in the same manner as a lesson to those who would rebel. The only thing unique or unusual about his passing was how fast it was. The norm was to extend the death for days if possible to further impress upon the populace that rebelion was not a good way to go. The point in all this is that while historical events may support some of the surrounding events of religious beliefs, in the end the things most necessary for those religions to exist rely on faith, frequently faith in the words of a ‘revealer’.

 

A revealer is someone who claims to have been given a message or who claims to be related to or actually be God. In almost all cases the revealer’s words have been passed through numerous generations, translations from ancient languages and through the hands or many semi literate scribes working at the behest and direction of wealthy benefactors who had their own agenda. So how reliable are the words of any of these religions that we are expected to accept as the word of God?

 

For Christians (and maybe Jews too, I’m not that sure) the question is answered by invoking the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guided the hand of the scribe so the words are beyond question. Unless you don’t have much confidence in spirits and goblins in which case you might have a hard time with an imaginary spirit floating around. It is also easy to find in all the major religions things they have in common including not stealing, raping, pillaging, etc. and want to believe because the messages generally have universal appeal.  What’s so bad about accepting the teachings of a religion that espouses those noble and appealing concepts?

 

Whether you are a Taoist, Islamist or Christian what you get along with your daily dose of be kind to your neighbor is a healthy ration of why your particular religion is THE ONE and all the others just don’t have a chance of getting you to heaven or nirvana or whatever else passes for the religious ultimate. And once you have humanity neatly divided up into the right believers and the wrong believers then you can begin to understand how the Jews could have been butchered by modern day predominantly Christian Germans, why the Turks could massacre 1.5 million  Armenians, why Hamas continues to butcher innocent Jewish women and children, why Poles in Kielce conducted a Pogrom in 1946, why Shiites and Sunnies murder each other with abandon and why the terrorists flew into the twin towers. In each and every case, all occurring in the last 100 years, or modern times, we can see religious faith taken too far.

 

Religions by themselves can be tools of society to retain orderliness and responsible conduct. But religions must come with the requisite faith and that faith is always just a hairs breadth away from the extremism that has recurred throughout history right into our time with unrelenting frequency and which always leads to death and destruction. It is my contention that there is no good faith, only bad faith waiting for right catalyst to become the next human tragedy.

Can society stay orderly and humane absent religions and their necessary faith? We all possess two wonderful God given attributes which, when used in conjunction with each other, offer us a way to have the society we need and desire with out resorting to blind faith. One is the brain with which we can each think our way through issues of societal order and see the prudence of treating our neighbors as we would wish to be treated. And we each have a conscience-a wonderful device that gives each of us, some more some less, a sense of right and wrong. To those who would say that a conscience is an intangible I would have it that there is tangible proof of it's existence. The best argument I can think of would in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity which makes a great case for a God and a conscience before its irrefutable logic is derailed by a need for faith.

A God given Conscience and a brain allowed to think. All we need to remove from our humanity its greatest blight-blind faith.

“We look forward to a world founded upon four essential Human Freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want….everywhere in the world. The forth is freedom from fear …. anywhere in the world.”

The author of these grand words? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? Barak Obama? No-these are the words of the last great democrat but one to occupy the oval office-FDR. These words are from his State of the Union speech in January 1941 and were in support of our nation, not yet committed to war in Europe or the Pacific, actively engaging in the cause of global freedoms sure in the knowledge that a world largely populated by democracy would assure our peace and security but that a world dominated by totalitarian beliefs and systems outside our borders could only mean greater dangers, risks and uncertainty for America.

My purpose in bringing up these words is to focus us all in the coming elections on the distinctions between the parties from which we must choose so many candidates. Do we not have to be concerned, as was the case in 1941, that a world outside the US dominated by a totally committed and unrelenting enemy of those freedoms might lead first to isolation of America and then subjugation of it? As in 1941 we are today faced with an unrelenting and vicious enemy. As in 1941 we have today voices in our congress and Senate and some of those running for the Presidency that would have us draw back, focus on our internal problems and let the folks ‘over there’ deal with their own issues. But as we learned from men the likes of Neville Chamberlain in the years preceding WWII, appeasing those who are diametrically opposed to everything we stand for only encourages them to believe that our ideas are tired, our will can be easily broken and leads ultimately to their attempt to impose their will by force of arms. The enemy today is little different than the Kaiser in WWI or Hitler in WWII; they chose to impose their will through fear and intimidation and any attempt to appease them only emboldens them. It is the history of the human race.

In 1941, because we had men the stature of FDR, we did what was right for ourselves AND for the world at large. We did not back away, we confronted those aligned against human freedom and dignity and we prevailed. We can do no less today, but, should we put a another Clinton or an Obama in the White House, we will certainly go down the wrong path, the Islamic terrorists will only grow stronger, more resolute and more aggressive and it will take a much greater and far more costly effort in a world much more dangerous and changed by 4 years of cut and run and appeasement to go back and do what must be done if we are to survive as a nation and a people.

Now is not the time for the ‘reasonableness’ of ‘moderates’ on both sides of the isle. The enemy knows no such reasonableness or moderation; just ask the 10s of thousands of victims of their terror attacks around the globe. If we do not possess a determination, focus and unshakable resolve at least the equal of our enemy we will surely suffer terrible disasters. If we are strong enough and focused enough to forge ahead with FDR’s dream for mankind we have a way forward to a time of global peace; but if we abandon our neighbors to their own devices, as we did in WWI and then again in the run up to WWII, we only set the stage for this generations tyrants and oppressors to freely pursue their despicable ends until we have no choice but to engage them militarily again. The difference in cost between engaging them now or later is enormous. Stopping Hitler in 1937 or 1938 would have been far, far easier than it became in 1941.

We need to elect senators, congress persons and a president that will not myopically attempt to solve our international conflict with terror by appeasing and retreating. We need leadership that understands the lessons of the past and is willing apply them to today’s crisis so that we do not suffer the horrors of another WWI or WWII. We must continue to spread FDR’s four freedoms in every reasonable way around the globe. It is our only hope of a lasting peace for our children and our children’s children. The sacrifices of our greatest generation, sacrifices that have made us the worlds sole super power and a beacon of freedom and opportunity the world over, must not be frittered away at the alter of political power or left in the hands of those who may be well intentioned but whose narrow view of world events precludes their seeing the very predictable and horrific outcome of appeasement and retreat.

    So the word out now is that Al Queda is stronger and possibly as strong as it was just before 9/11. One must wonder why. Is it because we have not gone after them in their caves and tents?

    No. We've certainly been after them everywhere we can determine they exist. Because of the backlash to headcount reports from the Viet Nam war we don't get numbers on how many of the enemy we are taking out but we are getting a lot of these vermin and maybe that's part of the problem; those of the Islamic faith who are on the fence with regard to overtly joining the jihad are not being desuaded by evidence of the death and destruction awaiting them. Granted, one of the rewards for fighting for Allah is the possibility you can be a martyr and get your 72 wives (it is wives not virgins) but still, the thought that you might just be victorious is a great motivator. Which brings us to what may well be the biggest boost to Al Queda recruiting.

    Our mindless senators and congress folk who think it wise and noble to tell the country, as well as the rest of the world including our enemy, that we’ve lost, we have to quit and its not worth the price we’re paying. If you’re the enemy and you’re being told that the leadership of the enemy is ready to quit you not only have to be greatly encouraged, you should be able to go to those who have heretofore been reluctant to join the fray and say to them ‘we are winning-don’t you want to be part of our great victory?’ Sells pretty good if you deep down believe that your religion should fulfill the destiny its founder set for it-world domination.

    So what could be better for Al Queda recruiting and funding than outright victories on the battlefield? Why having senior and powerful leaders of the enemy camp admitting defeat and lobbying for an end to the fight. These people are making political hay out of a war that is critically important to American security and world economic stability while hiding behind an abusive and irresponsible interpretation of our precious right to freedom of speech.

    Today in Iraq we have thousands of young men and women in harms way fighting a desperate battle against a vicious and suicidal enemy. The last thing they need is any encouragement coming to the aid of this enemy. It is our brave young warriors lives more greatly at risk for God’s sake! Even those speaking of defeat and retreat know and would probably admit that a victory is a much better outcome than a defeat. These so called leaders have more than anyone in our society an obligation to understand the power of their statements which in turn demands of them responsible and measured public statements on the war, statements that do not put our young men and women more greatly at risk and statements that don’t encourage and motivate the enemy.

 

So one of our leading candidates to become Commander in Chief thinks you can have a war with a time limit. Such a scheme can only mean it's author believes the enemy is not encouraged by any such dead line, our troops are reassured that their sacrifices to date and between now and the projected quit date are worthwhile and valuable and, most importantly, the resulting chaos in the region will have no lasting impact on the world at large and the US in particular.

The Reality is that these cretins can only myopically envision the votes they might garner by making those against the war happy, totally and myopically ignoring any consequence greater than tomorrows fund raiser or this falls primaries. War and international affairs are not something you dabble in back away from when the going gets a little tough. Had we these stalwarts in times past we would never have had a nation to begin with, certainly not kept the nation together during the Civil War and absolutely not won WWII. 

We need to finish what we started. Not only because of the impact to folks there in the Middle East who've trusted the U.S. to finish what it starts but also because this enemy, greatly encouraged by defeating the might U.S. will have its ranks swollen by new recruits, it coffers filled to overflowing with new funding and its targets will become Topeka and Spokane rather than Bahgdad. Imagine how much tougher it will be to re-engage and win when no trusts you to stay the course? And this IS NOT VIET NAM-the last time we quit! The deaths of millions and destruction of nations will not be isolated to just Iraq or even the Middle East. This enemy has global aspirations-They will not stay there. Nothing they have said or done would lead anyone, even the most timid quiter, to believe they want stay in their sandbox.