Veritas Rex

Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

Test of Faith: Spiritual Mentor v. Ambition

Coverage has abounded on the reckless statements of B. Hussein Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright.  However, what I have been waiting for is a conversation about how you throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus the way B. Hussein Obama has done.  Dinesh D'Zousa does a great job in his most recent article of addressing this very issue (give it a read).  Shouldn't the pastor-congregant relationship be one of the most imporant relationships in one's life?  I know it is for me. The argument that B. Hussein Obama did not know the radical views of his pastor is not a plausible argument in my mind.  So, the real option for Obama was:

A.  Remain loyal to my pastor and spiritual mentor and face the consequences.

B.  Throw my pastor and spiritual mentor under the bus in the name of political expediency. 

Obama was faced with a lose/lose situation, but he may have chosen the worse option.  What does it say about a person when they sell out those closest to them in order to pursue their ambition?  Nothing good.  Is D'Zousa right?  Is Wright really the consistent one, while Obama hides in the shadows?  You can dedide for yourself.  Here is an expert from the D'Zousa article:

Now Obama would have us believe that, as far as Wright is concerned, he's had just about enough. But why? What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him.

Wright noted that of course Obama is now saying something different; that's because Obama is now running for president. So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years. It is Obama himself who has given us this man, and assured us of his integrity and reliability.

The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows

Why shouldn’t the Gipper be conservatives' reference point?

First, let’s be honest, Governor Daniels has done a great deal to promote conservative principles in Indiana.  You need only look at the people who are in positions of leadership within state government compared to four years ago to recognize this fact.  The governor’s agenda has promoted pro-life, pro-faith, pro-free market and pro-limited government policies and should be given credit by conservatives for the myriad of his “crew’s” accomplishments.

However, “My Man Mitch” needs a smack on the hand for his comments on the Gipper.  Here is the full quote courtesy of the Indy Star:

Daniels on Reagan

Here are excerpts from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ comments about Ronald Reagan, made to a conservative crowd in Washington, D.C., on April 17. The governor’s office provided the remarks Thursday to The Associated Press.

“I hope very much not to be misunderstood. I think it is time to let Ronald Reagan go. Not from our reverent memory, of course. Not ever, but as our touchstone, as our icon, as our hallmark and our reference point. Let me please explain what I mean.

“It used to strike me so odd that the Democrats of that day, or other public figures of that viewpoint, couldn’t quit obsessing about FDR. And what it told me as a young person at that time was they were looking backward. They had nothing new to offer, nothing new to say. Nothing to say to me. It was a dead giveaway that they were living in the past.

“Ralph Emerson once wrote that ’In any place, any political system ultimately divides between the party of hope and the party of memory.’ And hope is always, of course, about the future and the next generation. ... People come and go. The greatest of leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.

“I don’t think anyone understood that better than Ronald Reagan, who was always fixed on the future, who always spoke to the next generation, who always believed that somehow, someway, against the apparent odds of the present America, the things that we stand for would advance, and progress and prevail.”

I agree that we should not worship past leaders.  Ronald Reagan was an imperfect person, just like every other mere mortal who has ever lived.  However, I disagree that the Gipper should cease to be an icon and a reference point for conservatives.  Ronald Reagan gave conservatives a great blueprint for what it means to be a conservative and how to ultimately have conservative principles succeed.  I also agree that “leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.”  However, I don’t see how removing Reagan as our reference point for these principles will help them endure.  In fact, I believe the more we move away from referencing Reagan, the more conservative principles will be watered down and moderated.   

Barack Obama's Elitism

I know I'm way beyond late on this issue, but it's still more than relevant- and not just because Hillary Clinton needs it to win Pennsylvania (and perhaps the Hoosier state as well).

Here's what The Huffington Post revealed that caused such a stir about Barack Obama.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I won't dwell on how offensive it is to have my faith reduced to some sort of gut response to displeasure.  However, I do find this another great example of Barack Obama's elitism- which seems to reveal itself in a distaste for our culture.  These statements are a disturbing look into what kind of leader Barack Obama will be.

Here's the evidence thus far:

1. Michelle Obama says that she's never been proud of her country before Obama's candidacy.
2. Obama seeks spiritual leadership from a man who says US is responsible for 9-11.  He also says that God should damn America.
3. Barack Obama doesn't salute the flag or wear a flag pin.
4. Obama thinks that people are religious or pro-gun because they are bitter.
5. Obama thinks that babies are punishment for sex.

Obama may be running on a message of Hope, but that may not be his biggest contribution to our culture.

I was born in a small town

Here is a great article written by IFI board member Mark Novotny.  Please join me in welcoming him to the fray. 

I was born in a small town.  These words are sung with pride by John Mellencamp and proudly identified with by millions of Americans, of which I am one.  When presidential hopeful, Barack Obama spoke about many people in small towns being bitter and clinging to their religion or guns, many were made to feel disrespected and insulted. One’s faith in God has nothing to do with economic circumstances.  Throughout history God has called both rich and poor, thus I fail to see the nexus between one’s faith and financial status. 

I am proud and thankful for the opportunity to grow up in a small Indiana town where my parents, teachers and neighbors taught me enduring values such as hard work, thrift and honesty.  More importantly, I learned about God and His love for all people everywhere.  Far from “clinging to my religion”, I daily thank God that 35 years ago He saved a sinner such as me. 

The antidote for bitterness is not big government, but a thankful heart.  As Cicero stated so well, “A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all virtues”.  All we need to do is look around the world to see how truly blest we are to live in this great country. 

While Senator Obama may not have intended to insult millions of us, his comments reveal a condescending, elitist attitude which is troubling.  With more than $2.5 million of income in 2005 and 2006 combined, does he no longer “cling to his religion”?

Mark Novotny
Fishers, IN

Please don't be winning, please

We are a little late on this, but we couldn't believe it when we saw it.  Even before Crocker and Petraus testified, Nancy Pelosi was telling them what to say!  Congressional Democrats warned military leaders in Iraq:  "Please don't tell us we're winning.  Please!"

A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.

In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq's southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.

Don't worry Speaker Pelosi, I'm sure no matter what military leaders say there will always be a way for you to surrender in Iraq.

Liberals are generous, but only with other people's money

This article, written by George Will, is a gem.  It seems like our liberal friends, constantly accusing us of being uncharitable and uncaring, are in fact engaging in projection.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.

They include these findings:

oAlthough liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

oConservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

oResidents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

oBush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

oIn the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

oPeople who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

And for those new atheists, who ascribe only pain to religious affiliation, we have these facts.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.

It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.”

America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

Our deadly enemies

Recently, at the Politics Online Conference run by GWU, I spent some time talking with a number of individuals from the left and some Paulistinians. 

Their position on the war on terror: "If we just stop intervening all over the world, particularly in the Middle East, then our enemies will have no reason to attack us."  The idea is that if we mind our own business, they will go away.  This argument goes hand in hand with the "Bush is a bully.  When he's gone we'll just meet with all these dictators and peace will come."

I don't know how they reconcile that view with reality.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday for publication of cartoons mocking Islam's Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet coinciding with the birthday of Islam's founder, bin Laden said the drawings, considered offensive by Muslims, were part of a "new crusade" in which Pope Benedict was involved.

"Your publications of these drawings -- part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role -- is a confirmation from you that the war continues," said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing "those who are wise at the European Union".

You are "testing Muslims ... the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear."

Don't they realize that our enemies are deadly, and they are willing to kill over CARTOONS!?  Our enemies aren't rational, thoughtful human beings.  They are deadly, hateful people who want to kill us.  They won't go away when we get out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 

No, then they'll hate us because some newspaper criticizes Mohamed.  Or they'll hate us because our flag has stars and stripes or because our President meets with some foreign leader they don't like.

Our enemies won't stop until their brand of deadly religious extremism has covered our world in blood.  If the left can't see that, they and their political allies aren't fit to defend our country.

Will Obama bring racial change?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for Barack Obama.  In recent days, voters have been focused on coverage of Barack Obama's preacher and his anti-American, anti-white remarks (I have been in Los Angeles, sorry- but, now I am back).  It's raised the larger issue of Obama's race and has dove-tailed poorly (for him) with his wife's remarks that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" and Obama's failure to salute the flag.

For me, the problem for Obama regarding race is that he doesn't bring change.  He brings more of the same.  He re-packages ideas from the '60s in great rhetoric, but we still get more race politics.  He continues to fight for the great delusion, propagated by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright and others that the greatest friend to minorities are the liberal leaders of our country.

Obama's speech, given yesterday to try to end the issue, made a number of good points about race in our society and was remarkably even-handed, but Obama also resorted to the same talking points on racism from the left.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.  That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.  And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

If Obama is simply highlighting the challenges that black people face, then I agree with these sentiments.  But what we really need is an acknowledgment from liberals that many of these problems are of our own making and have nothing to do with race?  Are the Indianapolis Public School's struggles a result of racism?  I don't think so.  Is the answer a funding system that favors black schools in Indiana?  No. 

I am refreshed that Obama seems to at least recognize that the very programs set up by liberals to favor poor families have instead eroded them- particularly black families.  I hold out hope that perhaps he sees that the real problem is that the liberals who supposedly fight for minorities continue to destroy their families with entitlement policies.  But I am discouraged because Obama's policies don't free these families, they simply fight for more government intervention earlier in these people's lives, not less.  In fact, Obama wants government education programs starting at age 0.

What we really need, for real change for those minorities who feel oppressed, is new leaders and a new vision.  We need a call for an ownership society, not more government intervention to right the wrongs of the Civil War or Jim Crow.  We need to create more opportunities for minorities, not demand more equality in outcomes.  We need to encourage each individual to excel by teaching personal responsibility and discourage them from the habit of blaming others for their problems (which is a problem plaguing all races in the 21st Century).

With this kind of change we could see true reform of those institutions which are hurting poor or disadvantaged minorities.   

 

War coverage greatly diminishes

It's high time that the media begins to pay attention to their own lack of coverage of our successes in Iraq.  This Miami Herald article discusses it in great detail, but seems to miss the point. 

Remember the war in Iraq?

The question isn't entirely facetious. The war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months, replaced by stories about the fascinating presidential campaign and faltering economy.

Yet Americans continue to fight and die there, five years after the war started in March 2003.

Yeah.  You have to be dead not to have noticed how war coverage has diminished in recent months.  However, I can't help to notice that the coverage seemed to drop off as our efforts in Iraq began to see success.

Statistics clearly illustrate the diminished attention. For the first 10 weeks of the year, the war accounted for 3 percent of television, newspaper and Internet stories in the Project for Excellence in Journalism's survey of news coverage. During the same period in 2007, Iraq filled 23 percent of the news hole.

The difference is even more stark on cable news networks: 24 percent of the time spent on Iraq last year, just 1 percent this year.

"The fact that it went down didn't surprise me," said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director. "But the fact that it almost disappeared is something I didn't expect."

The fatigue factor is hard to fight.

From a journalist's standpoint, the story hasn't changed for several months. The American "surge" appears to have made progress, and while Iraq is hardly safe, pockets of the country are much safer than before.

It's possible to pinpoint the exact week that the switch turned off. The war averaged 30 minutes per week of coverage last year on the three network evening newscasts up until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. forces, testified in September about the surge's progress, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall. In the last 15 weeks of the year, the broadcasts collectively spent four minutes per week on the war.

The article seems to blame the decrease, however, on the lack of ratings for war coverage.  Although I am certain that fatique at home affects ratings, I think it more likely that the MSM considers a message of success in Iraq a lot less entertaining of a narrative.

Perhaps what America is really tired of is the same message from the national media- that our military and our soldiers can't win in Iraq.  They don't want to hear the constant hand wringing and finger-pointing.

Their logic that the 'story hasn't changed" seems quite hypocritical considering that the media carried the unchaning message of "failure in Iraq", "screw ups", and "Bush is faltering" since 2004.  Now that the new Bush strategy is working, a fact that can no longer be denied by the media (although the national Dems continue to live in the "we've lost" fantasy world), Iraq is boring.

This is 2008.  The media isn't just covering the news, they are making the news.  By not covering an issue they affect it.  By covering it, particularly from a slanted viewpoint, they also schew voter opinion.  They have a responsibility to cover our success in Iraq as much as they have to cover our failures.  Unfortunately they seem interesting in doing only one of those.

Fighting For The First Amendment

     The First Amendment, our nation's bedrock protector of religious and political freedoms, is under constant assault.  One of its more prominent protectors is US Rep. Mike Pence, a recovering journalist himself and a former member of the Indiana Family Institute Board of Directors.

     He has championed several pro-freedom media bills in Congress, and accompanied President Bush aboard Air Force One to an address at the Religious Broadcasters Association convention this week.  In his remarks, the President praised Pence's efforts to prevent the so-called Fairness Doctrine from reappearing to muzzle conservative, alternative media.  The link below will take you to the President's remarks regarding Pence's bill before the Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEh7ECs3AHo

     Here is the text as provided by Pence's press office:

    Bush Calls for End of the Fairness Doctrine, Urges Passage of Broadcaster Freedom Act

     WASHINGTON, DC—President George W. Bush spoke today at the 2008 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, TN.  Congressman Mike Pence attended the speech at the invitation of the President. Below is the portion of the speech pertaining to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” as well as acknowledgment of Congressman Pence’s work in bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act before Congress.


     “This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways -- America's airways -- stay open to those who preach the Good News.  (Applause.)  The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.  Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator.  They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.  (Applause.) 

     “I mention this because there's an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways.  Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago.  It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine.  Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.  This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington's definition of balance.  Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don't like.  (Laughter and applause.) 

     “We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights:  shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today.  By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with.  The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas.  They don't acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice -- (applause.)  The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions.  After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions. 

     “If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now.  Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.  Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill.  So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what's called a "discharge petition," that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban.  Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

     “I do want to thank Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden, for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely.  And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition.  But I'll tell you this:  If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I'm going to veto it.  (Applause.)


###

Big Brother liberalism strikes in California…is Indiana next?

For years conservatives (including yours truly...here, here and here) have been sounding the alarm against the significant and growing problem of judicial activism.  Liberalism infested and conquered most law schools many decades ago.  However, until more recently the spawn of this corruption of the legal profession at least attempted to hide their ideological bias behind the tricky “penumbra” they keep magically finding in the Constitution.

However, in more recent history, marriage, property rights, religious liberty and now parental rights (to name only a few) have taken serious frontal assaults from a few black-robed tyrants.  Most recently the California Court of Appeals ruled that parents have no legal right to home-school their children.

For those of you keeping score at home, the liberal ideology dominates much of American culture today including:  the mainstream media (for example: CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, most major newspapers…ring any bells?), the education system (Last time I checked the teachers unions were still a bastion of liberalism and they run much of the public school system.  To make matters much worse, many colleges and universities have crusty Marxists from the 60’s entrenched in power), government bureaucracy (need I explain…really?), the courts, much of corporate America (Bill Gates, Tim Gil, etc.), even the church is threatened (only 50% of pastors have a biblical worldview according to George Barna).

Conservatives still have a fighting chance in some areas of public influence, but our last best hope is in the home.  Conservatives don’t abort their babies and they teach their children the Truth.  That is a threat to liberalism.  Given this reality, is it any surprise that the home and parental rights are targeted?  Will liberals be content with crushing parental rights in California?  Were they content to declare sodomy a constitutional right in only one state?  Were they happy to allow babies to be murdered within their mother’s wombs in only one state?  Be vigilant Indiana.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”  - Thomas Jefferson

Hat tip - One News Now

A good article on the GOP and Iraq

This article, by John Podhoretz, in Commentary Magazine, is one of the best I've seen when it comes to analysis of the 2006 Election Cycle.

I'm not so much interested in re-hashing the 2006 Election Cycle, or demonstrating any opinions of it.  However, I find Podhoretz's analysis of American attitudes towards the war enlightening. 

I'll highlight a few portions of the article here, but you'll benefit from reading the entire article. 

Podhoretz summarizes his argument about 1/4 of the way through the article.

For a midterm election, what happened in 2006 was an uncommon event: a national wave. In the past half-century, there have been only two others like it, the first in 1974 when Democrats won 75 seats in the House and four in the Senate and the second in 1994. In all three cases, there was a single, identifiable, overwhelming reason for the loss. The 1974 election occurred in the wake of Watergate. The 1994 election took place in the wake of the effort by the Clinton administration to nationalize health care. And the 2006 election? It was decided not because of a few corrupt Republicans, or because Congress had spent a great deal, or because of a flawed immigration measure. It was decided by the fact that the United States was on the verge of suffering a cataclysmic defeat in war.

He has a strong narrative on fading support for the war in 2005.

Meanwhile, for many of those who had supported the war, the Katrina crisis signified something far more disturbing. Having watched despairingly as roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices in Iraq did their monstrous work on a daily basis, they had already begun to entertain severe misgivings. Support for the war, which was at 50 percent nationally at the end of 2004, sank through 2005, almost entirely due to changes of heart among independent voters. And it was these independents who fled the farthest from Bush after Katrina. Washington’s response to the catastrophe suggested to them that Bush did not know what he was doing—and therefore that the trust they had shown him in 2004 had been misplaced.

“This will take time and patience,” Bush said of Iraq in 2005. But not until November of that year did he attempt to present an explicit “Strategy for Victory.” And that document simply repackaged the administration’s existing approach, envisioning not a battlefield defeat of the enemy but a gradual withering-away thanks to progress on the political and economic fronts and enhanced training of Iraqi troops.

As a matter of military strategy, as Bush would concede after the 2006 election, this was a flawed approach. It was also flawed as a matter of wartime leadership. In the realm of public opinion, a war must be won and an enemy must be defeated; for a nation with men fighting on foreign soil, there can be no other major goal. And there was worse. Bush had prevailed in 2004 by offering the implicit promise of winning in Iraq. But then, with great fanfare, he had announced that the great project of his second term would be—an effort to restructure Social Security. He had no mandate for such a thing, and the refusal of Republicans on Capitol Hill to line up behind it was a harbinger of similar discontents to come.

In October 2005, one month after Katrina, the President made the ill-advised decision to nominate his White House counsel Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy. This caused an eruption in elite conservative opinion, and he was forced to withdraw the nomination (while claiming that she was the one who dropped out). Miers was indeed a poor choice, but under different circumstances Bush would have had little difficulty in assuring her confirmation. What made the conservative revolt possible was not her lack of credentials but Bush’s gradual loss of standing in his own party—a loss due entirely to the sense that he might be flying blind in Iraq.

He was even more compromised in the early months of 2006 as Iraq descended into nightmarish sectarian violence following the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. It was against this backdrop that the President advanced his immigration-reform bill. It was not well-drafted and deserved to be defeated. Even so, however, Bush had been championing most of its provisions since his days as governor of Texas, and his advocacy had not prevented a single conservative activist from supporting him wholeheartedly in 2000 or in 2004.

Had he come before the American people as the victor in Iraq, Bush would have had his immigration bill for the taking—with, to be sure, muted grumbling from some of his backers analogous to the grumbling after the passage of his education legislation in 2001 or the prescription-drug entitlement in 2003. In 2006, however, he found himself on the receiving end of wildly intemperate blasts of scorn, contempt, rage, and disgust, and his own party killed the bill.

By November, going into the election, the GOP was divided, weakened, and disheartened. Had the Iraq war gone differently, none of this would have been the case.

Podhoretz has interesting things to say about 2007 as well.

What had happened? If the results of the 2006 election had indeed been a straightforward mandate for the Democratic view that “this war is lost” (as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would put it in April 2007), legislation sent from Capitol Hill to the White House would have reflected that conviction. Democrats from Bush districts would not have objected, and fearful Republicans would have crossed party lines to side with their Democratic colleagues. That is what occurs when an issue has a mandate.

Yet Democrats could not get a single withdrawal proposal through the legislative process to the President’s desk. What is more, their efforts to do so have endeared them to no one: neither disaffected independents, nor depressed Republicans, nor liberals crying for Bush’s head. To the contrary: according to polls, the present Democratic leadership in Congress is the object of an icy public scorn several degrees cooler even than the permafrost in which George W. Bush has been embalmed.

Finally, he concludes with his thoughts on how this impacts things in 2008.

It is a great irony that the best political news for Republicans in a notably unfavorable election year—with the public telling pollsters that it is desirous of change and prefers Democratic stands on most issues by margins ranging from ten to twenty points—may come out of Iraq. Should the surge’s progress continue and deepen, the Democratic nominee may find himself or herself in a very uncomfortable position come autumn. The Democratic base will not have changed its mind about the war’s evil, and it will not be happy with a leader who does. So the nominee will find it almost impossible to embrace the surge, and certainly not after having disparaged it caustically in the past. But if the nominee does not embrace the real possibility of victory in Iraq, he or she will run the risk of appearing defeatist, or worse, in the eyes of the same independent voters who fled the GOP in droves in 2006.

Meanwhile, the candidate most associated with the surge, John McCain, will (assuming he becomes the nominee of the Republican party) be uniquely well situated to deploy an accusation he has been leveling at the Democratic frontrunners for nearly a year. “I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq,” McCain said about a vote the two Democrats cast in May 2007. He called this “the equivalent of waving a white flag of surrender to al Qaeda.”

I'm not quite sure if his analysis of 2008 will prove true or not.  Clearly Barack Obama, most likely to surrender precipitously, is gathering momentum in this Election in ways that seemed impossible. 

Part of me wonders if Americans simply want to return to the blissful ignorance of the Clinton years, when the end of the Cold War and relative peace abroad had us convinced that our enemies were no longer amassing against us.  We're tired of Iraq.  I'm tired of the endless discussion of it.  Apparently so is the New York Times, which is giving far less ink to the War in Iraq now that we are winning.

War politics in 2008 is a wild card.  We've got eight more months of it until November.  Only a fool would try to predict with certainty what the result will be.

Presidential candidates on Abortion

In alphabetical order:

Hillary Clinton
From her website: 

Hillary has fought the relentless and insidious efforts by far-right Republicans to limit the protections of Roe v Wade, while also working hard to expand access to family planning services.

Mike Huckabee
From his website:

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.  My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been
clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering.  I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

John McCain
From his website:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level.

Barack Obama
I couldn't find any information about Obama on his webpage, but did find the following by Jill Staneck of Illinois in WorldNet Daily.  Frankly, he makes Hillary Clinton look like a right to life fanatic.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)

The Prez Candidates on Faith

I took a look at the top four Prez candidate's websites to see what they had to say about faith.  What will voters have to say on this Super Tuesday?

In no particular order:
Sen Barack Obama:  In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. In December, 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.

See more here.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Faith was central to her family. Her mother taught Sunday school, and Hillary was a regular in her church youth group. She was deeply influenced by her youth minister who taught her about "faith in action." There were trips to the inner city, babysitting for the children of migrant farm workers, and an extraordinary night when Hillary was fourteen and her youth group went to hear a speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

See more here.

Sen. John McCain:  He has an excellent video on the issue that's better than anything else on his website.  I'll paraphrase him in the video... "I have a purpose.  And that purpose, I think, is to live a life based on Judeo-Christian values."

Gov. Mitt Romney:  Romney's best stuff on faith is actually his speech delivered at the George Bush Presidential Library.  "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Check out more here.

Only in California...

No, this is not from The Onion.  This actually happened.

Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

Would it be possible to somehow deny Berkeley the protections provided by said Marines?  Perhaps that will encourage the City Council to reverse their ridiculous position.

Want an Economic Stimulus? Fire Congress.

As we debated ways to stimulate the economy this month, one way not being considered is to give relief in the form of government de-regulation.

From the Heritage Foundation.

By itself, last month's energy bill will make food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington is also the culprit behind high medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and our wonderful, more-expensive "lo-flo" toilets that don't flush right.

All this is on top of what red tape already costs us. A 2004 government report admitted that federal regulations cost our economy at least $1.1 trillion each year. That's $3,666 per person, so multiply that by the number of people in your household. And remember that's before the 2007 energy bill. And in addition to taxes.

Instead we are giving handouts.  I'll take mine happily- believe me- but couldn't we benefit long term by just getting rid of some regulations and government spending.

It's not even on the table.

The Stem Cell Debate Settled?

From tothesource.com

University of Wisconsin's James Thomson is a remarkable scientist.  In 1998 he sparked the "great stem cell war" by deriving the first stem cell lines from human embryos.  Ironically, last November, as that political and cultural conflagration blazed, Thomson—along with Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka—poured water on the flames by turning ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs) that may have the same properties scientists believe are best to treat the most serious of human afflictions. 
                   
To understand why this breakthrough is so culturally, as well as scientifically important, we need to recount the political turmoil caused by Thomson's original embryonic stem cell breakthrough. Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is intensely controversial because embryos must be destroyed in order to derive the cells  This is morally wrong, opponents argue, because it destroys human life and reduces the moral status of embryos to that of a mere natural resource.
                   
Proponents disagree.  They argue that already born people count more than microscopic organisms and moreover, that embryonic stem cells are the key to creating "regenerative medicine," a technique that uses cells and other body substances to restore function to diseased or injured body parts.  Pro ESCR advocates also promised to use only "leftover" embryos from IVF treatments that "are going to be thrown out anyway," arguing that since these embryos were doomed in any event, society might as well get something good out of them.
                   
The big fight began, as so many political brouhahas do, over money. Proponents wanted more than a free hand for researchers to conduct these experiments—which was never in question.  They also demanded that President Bush provide bounteous federal funding.  But Bush refused to be pushed.  In August 2001, he announced that he would only allow federal funding for ESCR on stem cell lines already in existence as of August 9, 2001.
                   
Proponents of ESCR were enraged, not just because of the financial restrictions but because of the clarion message Bush sent through is policy that human embryos matter morally.  To break the presidential will—and win the greater moral debate—biotech lobbyists mounted a brilliant political campaign to sell ESCR as promising imminent hope for cures, a message that resounded through the culture as mega celebrities such as the tragically paralyzed Christopher Reeve and Parkinson's disease-afflicted Michael J Fox demanded that Congress overturn the Bush policy. 
                   
Indeed, funding ESCR became so politically popular that both Republican and Democratic-led Congresses passed bipartisan legislation to overturn the Bush policy.  Bush vetoed these bills, but as election year 2008 dawned, his approach seemed to be in its death throes as embryonic stem cell research looked to be a sure political winner for the Democratic Party and its eventual presidential nominee.
                   
A second front in the great stem cell war broke out over human cloning.  Dropping their earlier promise to limit ESCR to leftover IVF embryos, scientists began to claim that "therapeutic cloning" was the real key to developing regenerative medicine because it would permit the creation of patient specific, tailor made embryonic stem cells taken from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer—the same cloning technique used to make Dolly the sheep. But with Bush in the Oval Office, promoters of human cloning knew that no money would be forthcoming for that effort.  Indeed, it was all they could do to prevent human cloning from being outlawed.
                   
As these controversies raged, Big Biotech decided to do an end run around the federal rules and get what it wanted from the states, opening a third front in the intensifying stem cell war.  California voters passed Proposition 71, which authorized the California to borrow a whopping $3 billion over ten years ($7 billion including interest) to fund research.  Worried about losing biotech jobs to California, other states rushed to fund the research too.  Then in 2006, Missouri voters narrowly passed Amendment 2 in Missouri creating a constitutional right to conduct human cloning research in a conservative Bible Belt state. The pro ESCR/cloning forces seemed on the verge of winning the debate in a rout. 
                   
But as 2007 drew to a close, those paying close attention noticed a subtle shift.  After nearly ten years of intense study—and nearly $2 billion in funding from private and public sources financing the experiments—no ESCR cures were on the horizon.  On the other hand, little reported by the mainstream media—but touted widely in alternative information outlets such as tothesource—adult stem research was advancing at an exhilarating pace, including the commencement of early human trials to treat conditions such as spinal cord injury, diabetes, and heart disease.
                   
Evidence of this change in public attitudes came in early November. New Jersey voters unexpectedly refused to pass a $450 million bond measure to fund ESCR, stunning the political and media establishments.  Could it be, advocates on both sides of the controversy wondered, that Big Biotech's embryonic stem cell circus barker-call of CURES! CURES! CURES! had begun to wear thin?   
                   
That's when Thomson and Yamanaka dropped their big iPSC breakthrough bombshells. While work remains to be done to perfect the technique, such as finding ways to introduce necessary genes into the cells without using viruses—and important to pro lifers, to reprogram cells without using DNA derived originally from aborted fetuses—IPSCs have transformed the political environment in ways unthinkable only four months ago. 
                   
The Bush policy, once on the verge of being overturned, is now almost surely safe for the balance of his term. Embryonic stem cell research is now rarely discussed.   Most importantly, iPSCs—if they pan out—have the potential to provide everything that therapeutic cloning advocates promised—patient specific, tailor made, pluripotent stem cells—without the moral contentiousness sparked by creating or destroying human embryos. 

Does this mean that the controversy is over?  Not yet.  Scientists still want to conduct ESCR to investigate pluripotency. But the Bush approved lines should be fine for that.  Some researchers also insist on continuing the drive to conduct human cloning—the crucial technology to permit genetic engineering, fetal farming for organs, and reproductive cloning.
                   
But most people want none of these brave new world technologies. They simply want Uncle Charlie's Parkinson's disease treated or their little Amy's diabetes alleviated.  And with adult stem cells and eventually iPSCs, looking as if they may bring efficacious regenerative treatments to clinical settings, we may have happily arrived at the "beginning of the end" to the great stem cell war.

Burton and Ellsworth Win Awards

This week two of our Indiana Congressmen received awards of note:

Burton is "True Blue" for the family

Congressman Dan Burton was recognized as a “True Blue” Member of Congress by Family Research Council (FRC) Action and Focus on the Family Action for his unwavering commitment to the family.  The award honors Members of Congress who have exhibited extraordinary leadership and commitment to the defense of family, faith, and freedom, according to FRC Action’s new scorecard covering House and Senate votes during the 1st session of the 110th Congress.

Recipients of the "True Blue" award are chosen for their consistent voting record on pro-life and pro-family issues such as defending restrictions on funding international abortion groups, human cloning prohibition, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Thought Crimes Act, protecting abstinence program for HIV/AIDS prevention, funding the D.C. Needle Exchange Program and the D.C. Gay Marriage Amendment, Restricting Funding Planned Parenthood Amendment, prohibiting implementing the “Fairness Doctrine” and the pseudo-children’s health bill.

"Golden Mouse" for Ellsworth and Burton

Constituent services and being accessible cross party lines - something we all appreciate in our elected representatives.  Two of Indiana's own, Congressman Brad Ellsworth and Congressman Dan Burton, recently received the coveted "Golden Mouse" award for their service.   

Only 26 House members’ Web sites were commended in The 2007 Gold Mouse Report: Lessons from the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill.  To identify the awards, CMF analyzed 618 congressional Web sites, including those of all Senate and House Members, committees (both majority and minority sites), and official leadership sites.  In 2007, CMF awarded 36 Gold, 34 Silver, and 34 Bronze Mouse Awards.

The 2007 Gold Mouse Report and Awards are part of the “Connecting to Congress” research project, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.  For this project CMF partnered with researchers from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, University of California-Riverside and Ohio State University to study how Members of Congress can use the Internet to improve communications with their constituents and to promote greater participation in the legislative process.

    

Mohler takes on Conservative Christian Political Idolaters--and me too?

My good friend, Josh Harber, a fundraising executive for Wycliffe Bible Translators, brought to my attention an analysis of the Iowa election numbers by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler. The evangelical leader makes some good insights on the meaning behind the Iowa results, but I take issue with a too-frequent dig (the right word?) against conservative Christians who are involved in politics:

"The rhetoric of the race -- and the rhetoric of many evangelicals -- is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord -- and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office."

(emphasis mine)

I agree with Mohler's main point: The Christian’s home in the future, not the present, and the pastoral clarion reminder is helpful. But I often hear this point as a pretext -- or a subtext -- to a subsequent and more emphatic point to "keep the main man the main thing." It's like a reminder to eat our vegetables. For those of us with a mouthful of peas, we ask, with all due respect, “puh-lease….”

It would be helpful if Mr. Mohler would expand his prophetic role to pointing out specific examples of  excess; I'm aware of the need to "be careful" but would benefit from his insight on how to be careful.  He -- and the thousands of his colleague-pastors who faithfully preach the Word but demonstrate time and again how painfully uninformed they remain on important matters of federal, state and local public policy -- should provide specific examples of error. Who is he talking about? Tony Perkins? Tony Campolo? Jim Dobson? Don Wildmon? What might be an example of too much hope? Not enough hope? Just the right amount of hope?

Is any hope in American democracy for the relief of grievances amount to the equivalent of idolatry? I know he does not believe this, for he acknowledges that "the political sphere is important" and, besides, his participation in the public square is renown, and the country has been blessed by his contribution.

Still, Mr. Mohler and this curious, irregular but frequent, evangelical buzz reminder seems to blindly lump those of us who love the Lord of the labor on behalf of babies, marriage, and country with those who adore the strategy, metrics and blood of the political sport so much that they would privately weep if, in fact, we were to instantly win our issues today. Yes, those are political idolaters who need a prophetic reminder that "Jesus Christ will not return on Air Force One."

But, having been at the fight for twenty years now, as a campaign staffer and congressional staffer, most of the evangelicals I know are not political idolaters, and not addicted to the sport. They're simply reaching up to intercept the enemy's dagger, plunging straight down in the hearts of the images of God.

Mr. Mohler's warning is helpful, but without more specificity about how much is too much or how little is too little, he risks lumping all activists into a particular category and thus discouraging more people from coming alongside to help resist that dagger, especially at a moment in history when we seem so close to actually winning a major battle in the war on abortion. It's not that I think his prophetic pen needs to be sharpened, but that he put it down too soon.

Christopher Mann

Fort Wayne, IN

Summary of links:

1. Joshua Harber, “Iowa Reaction”, Generosity Encouraged blog, Friday January 4, 2008
2. Albert Mohler, “The Caucus, the Candidates, and the Dance of Democracy”, AlbertMohler.com, Friday, January 4, 2008
3. Albert Mohler, “Albert Mohler bio”, AlbertMohler.com

Hope SHOULD be the message

The victors in Iowa, both Obama and Huckabee, should be commended for one thing- making a genuine effort to talk about HOPE.  They've talked about a grander vision, a higher ideal- something more than just dividing up the country into small voter blocks and attempting to aggregate enough of us to be the victor on Election Day.

On Barack Obama, From Newsweek Magazine:

In public, Obama attributes his quick political rise to that "respectful tone," which he believes voters crave after so many ugly, dispiriting campaign seasons. (Which includes most races since 1800.) When he first began thinking about a White House bid, he told advisers that he would be willing to run only if he could do it his way, which meant defying the conventional campaign theology of hitting the other guy hard and first, sticking to simple sound bites and preaching only to the base. He has shown a willingness to stray from his script and risk engaging (or boring) audiences with rambling professorial explanations about the details of this or that policy. And he has tried to rewrite Karl Rove's campaign manual by reaching across racial and party lines to appeal to the broadest—rather than the very narrowest—base of supporters.

From Mike Huckabee's Blog:

Yesterday, I flew to Little Rock to cut three new television ads with our campaign team. The first "Our Values" will air in Iowa and discusses my unwavering commitment towards a Human Life Amendment. The second ad which will air exclusively in New Hampshire called "Tax Cuts Matter" discusses the first broad based tax cut that I passed in Arkansas' history. You can view both ads here.

The third ad was a negative attack against Governor Romney. We prepared it, sent the ad to the television stations here in Iowa, and it was supposed to start running at noon today. This morning, I ordered my staff to pull the ad; I told them I do not want it to be run. If it was run at all, it would be until the stations pulled it off their schedules. And we are now committed, from now through the rest of the caucuses, that we will run only the ads that talk about why I should be president, and not why Mitt Romney should not.

I may not agree with everything both candidates say.  However, if they'll continue to try to appeal to something bigger than just who's got the largest campaign war chest or who can make the most negative ad, then they've done something for our country- whether they win or lose.

BDS and CDS: What's the difference?

For some time now, I have been pondering our current political atmosphere and its effect on our leaders.

For instance, I've been observing the phenomenon that could accurately be described as Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS for short.  The left's netroots has it for sure- blaming Bush for everything from a liberal talk show hosts child porn conviction to secretly planning 9-11.  And as the netroots has become more mainstream for the Democrat Party in general, their deranged thinking has had a measurable effect on prominent Democrat elected officials.  We now have Congressman Wexler's impeachment petition (of Dick Cheney), Bill Richardson joining the BUSH LIES!!!!!!!!! crowd, and the Bush-hating coming out of the DNC.

But at the same time, I have the ability to rewind to the 90's.  At that time we had another President, Bill Clinton.  Slick Willy, as some (including myself) called him at the time.  We believed every possible conspiracy against him.  I remember the drug smuggling stories, the Vince Foster suicide, and others.  We could also call that Clinton Derangement Syndrome. 

I'm a recovering CDS addict.  Hello, my name is Kurt and I'm a CDS-oholic?

It didn't bother me (or I didn't notice) then because attacking our leaders is a long-standing tradition in this country.  We do it with such precision and effectiveness, from the "swift boat" attacks on John Kerry to the attacks on President George Bush (the First) over Iran Contra (particularly good video here).  It also didn't bother me then because Clinton wasn't my preferred President.

But, although he wasn't choice #1 for me, I did vote for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.  So then he was my preferred President, and I didn't like all this crazy criticism of him.  The shoe was on the other foot.

So now it's 2008 and the Democratic nominee may be Hillary Clinton.  If we attack her harshly (as I suspect the Republicans are ready to do in 2008), what happens if she actually wins?  There has to be a certain level of respect and decorum when dealing with the President of the United States- even when they are a candidate.  Because when they win, they must lead our country.  They must be able to unite our country to challenge common enemies or tackle social ills. 

Somewhere, there is a balance between what we have now- an absolute attack on anyone running for office- and totally ignoring their faults altogether.  I don't support any kind of "be a patriot, support the war" mentality, but I also don't support this "be a patriot, kill George Bush" attitude we are seeing from his opponents.  The bumper stickers I see are outrageous.

So, you've seen me make a couple of posts defending Hillary Clinton in particular.  I suppose it's my "penance."  As for me, I've resolved to do my best to find some sort of middle ground and have a respectful attitude towards all of the individuals running for office- particularly Hillary Clinton.  Because she may just be MY President someday.

What other blessings are we missing?

I am not a big college football fan- particularly of the Florida Gators (OK- I'm originally from Ohio...).  But I have a lot of respect for Tim Tebow and his missionary parents.  What you may not have heard in the MSM (Main Stream Media) is in this article.

University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow became the first sophomore in the history of the NCAA to win the coveted Heisman Trophy as the best football player in the nation. However, Tebow's accomplishments may never have been supported had his mother followed a doctor's recommendation to have an abortion.

I know that there are those who say that abortion doesn't really rob us of anything.  That it should be a woman's choice because the "fetus" is part of her body.  However, we would have been robbed of the blessing of Tebow's athletic accomplishments.  Have we also been robbed of potential medical breakthroughs like the cure for cancer?  How about people who might have been government leaders, college professors, law enforcement officers or soldiers?  We may never know, but thanks to Pam Tebow's convictions, we got to experience Tim Tebow.

Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines in 1985 and they prayed for "Timmy" before she became pregnant.

Unfortunately, as the Gainesville Sun reports, Pam entered into a coma after she contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in a contaminated food or drink.

The treatment for the medical condition would require strong medications that doctors told Pam had caused irreversible damage to Tim -- so they advised her to have an abortion.

As the Sun reported, Pam Tebow refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted.

Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and, eventually, gave birth to a health baby boy in August 1987.

3 Christians murdered by Muslims in Turkey

It's good to remember what many of our Christian brothers and sisters are dealing with overseas.   Check out this video by CBN news about 3 Christians who were murdered by 5 Muslim men in Turkey.

 

Also check out this other video about religious freedom in Turkey.

Nine North Korean Christians arrested for "espionage"

In a shocking move, North Korea has arrested and possibly executed nine Christians.

In an unusual move, the National Security Service of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea held a press conference in Pyongyang, announcing the arrests of the nine Christians. Government officials claimed the Christians, who operated a photography studio, were actually foreign spies and native citizens working for a foreign intelligence service. North Korean-based sources with Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) said the Christians were not spies, but could have been targeted for their beliefs.

VOM spokesman Todd Nettleton says following Jesus can come at a steep price in North Korea. "Our suspicion is that the government learned that they were Christians, and then began to take a closer look at them when they discovered this camera equipment," he says. "Apparently, they thought [that] somehow, they were leaking information out of North Korea, instead of simply [being] people who were involved in a photography business."

Sources for VOM said the Christians were operating the photography studio in order to make ends meet, and had registered their business with the appropriate government authorities. However, sources do not know where the nine are being held, and Nettleton says it is possible they have already been tried and executed.