Captions Anyone?

Ok.  What would your caption for this picture be? 

 

On the heels of yesterday's capitulation by Boehner-led House Republicans on the Homeland Security bill without any conditions, which will fund the President's illegal amnesty program for illegal immigrants, mine is:

 

"Can you believe they think I'm a Republican?"

President Obama's State of the Union Address

Ok.  I confess.  I watched President Obama's State of the Union Address.  I knew it would be a colossal waste of time, as well as a stressful and blood-pressure altering event.  Nevertheless, I put my mind, my patriotism and my Christian/conservative values through it.


It was rather boring.


In raw terms of speeches, it simply missed the mark totally.  It lacked just about everything a good speech should have from passionate, engaging delivery to substantive issues.  His opening was confusing.  Never mind his revisionism of the past 15 years.  Sure, we've had some devastating events, but the past decade and a half weren't all bad.  But seriously, they "dawned with terror touching our shores"?  I thought Y2K was the beginning and that 9/11 would come 21 months later.  But I suppose I'm quibbling over what "dawn" actually entails.


"But tonight we turn the page", said the President. "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999."  I'm not sure what reality he is living in, but nothing has changed for me, my family, nor my friends.  The President would later ask

Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?

That sounds a lot like we haven't turned the page at all.  But what I'd really like to know is whether we will have an economy that gives to those who do nothing.  Whether illegal immigrants will continue to receive for free things my family cannot afford.  Whether those who choose not to work will receive benefits and entitlements at the expense of those who do work.


Additionally, the President's analogy taken from Rebekah Erler's letter that "we [Americans] are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times" is laughable.  We don't even all speak the same English language.


I suppose I've been so accustomed to the President's wealth distribution rhetoric that his vision of cheap child care and $0 tuition for community college didn't phase me (much).  And the closing of Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay prison)?  I thought he already promised he was closing it?  Albeit, it would be a huge mistake for our national security.  And that President seemed to know what the American people want and what they sent both Democrats and Republicans to Congress to do.  He seemed to forget that Americans sent Republicans to Congress in droves to stop him and his agenda.


One point did get my blood pumping just a bit.  The President scolded Congress

So let's set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let's pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come.

As if the Keystone Pipeline bill would not be complex enough.  The President doesn't want a one-issue bill.  That would be too simplistic.  We could know who wants us dependent on foreign oil.  We could have a very focused debate on one issue.  But the President, who says he doesn't want politics as usual, wants politics as usual.  Create a massive bill with a massive pricetag that contains massive issues.


Let's hope the Republicans remember why they were given control of the Senate.  Of course, the best part about the evening was that we will only have to listen to one more State of the Union speech from Mr. Obama.

Billy Graham Calls Christians to Act

Billy Graham is far from perfect.  But his long-time involvement in America’s political scene is seen once again, perhaps for the very last.  This soldier of Christ ran the following ad in today’s Wall Street Journal.

The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren, and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.

Good words from a good man.  While he may no longer be able to eloquently articulate to Americans their great need of Jesus Christ, he can still point Christians in a direction of honoring the Lord with our citizenship.

Joe's Laughing...But America Isn't

I know virtually everyone in America has commented on the Vice President Joe Biden's debate performance last night. You can read one of my favorite stories here.

I really was starting to wonder if the Joker had pulled this trick on Biden in the green room.

But in all seriousness, nothing was funny about last night's debate.

It isn't funny that Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear capability. Nor is the Vice President's ostrichian approach that "they [Iranian leaders] have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up. Then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point."


"AT THIS POINT", Mr. Vice President?  Just what do you think they are doing with the uranium they have acquired? And just how many Israeli parents put their children to bed each night with a great heaviness toward their future welfare?

And it is far from humorous that four American diplomats serving their country in Libya are dead; that four wives had to watch you snicker and that orphaned children and heart-sick parents and siblings of these men along with every other patriotic American had to listen to your semantic dance of refusing responsibility.  The present administration sought to cover up this assassination because of their horrendous foreign policy and cozy relationship with Muslim, American-hating governments of the Middle East.  It isn't funny that President Obama invited Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi to meet with him in New York but refused to meet with America's long time ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And there is no humor in America's jobless rate, President Obama adding $5 trillion in new debt, giving kickbacks to his friends in Solar Energy, and dozens of other things.

And certainly, Christian organizations are not laughing about Obamacare's requirement that they provide contraception, in spite of their religious convictions to the contrary.  In spite of your lie during the debate:

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy -- any hospital -- none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.

Christian organizations are not laughing, sir.  They are suing!  They are suing to preserve their constituional rights and their God given rights against an Obama administration bent on crushing those rights.

And I assure you that I am not laughing when in the name of Christ and His church you say:

I -- I do not believe that -- that we have a right to tell other people that women, they -- they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view.

You forgot, Mr. Biden, that third person which you liberals love to ignore.  That person which faith, AS WELL AS SCIENCE, tells us is a living, growing, developing baby.  A human being who proably has as big a grin on their face as you did throughout most of last night's debate.  At least until a death-dealing abortionist invades their life and starts hacking away at their limbs with a scapel or crushing their small, fragile bones with forceps. You are a part of all that is wrong with America, and not many Americans are laughing.

 

McCaskill's Nepotism

Nepotism is typically defined as "favoritism given to a relative regardless of merit."

Claire McCaskill wouldn't be the first politician to exercise nepotism. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a son and a son-in-law who lobby Congress for various special interests. Reid and Reid have an especially troubling China connection. It's worth a blog post of its own merits.

But Harry Reid isn't up for re-election in Missouri. Claire McCaskill is, and she has taken nepotism to a new low. According to this story from the Associated Press, Claire McCaskill voted repeatedly for various bills that benefited her husband to the tune of $40 million.

While Missourians struggle with deficit spending and high unemployment, McCaskill makes sure the money keeps on rolling to her husband. I can expect a little fluff going to relatives. But $40 million?

There is a better choice.

Todd Akin for U.S. Senate.

Presidential Debate--2012

I’m far from a professional debater. In fact, my own last formal debate was just a tad over 20 years ago when I debated on the KU campus whether the Gulf War was a “just war”. But as a public speaker, I know what works when I hear it. And while others have given their editorials on last night’s presidential debate between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, I have yet to hear anyone comment on what I believe to be the most poignant moment of the debate.

It was during the health care section and moderator Jim Lehrer asked Governor Romney to “tell the president directly why you think what he just said is wrong about Obamacare?”

Then Romney began thundering away:

First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary -- elected a Republican senator to stop Obamacare, you pushed it through anyway.

So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer and drove it through.
What we did in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together; 200 legislators in my legislature, only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes. You’ve raised them by $1 trillion under Obamacare. We didn’t cut Medicare. Of course, we don’t have Medicare, but we didn’t cut Medicare by $716 billion.

We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive. We didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put -- put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted.

This, of course, is the great weakness of Obamacare. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it helps Americas or will bankrupt America, Romney was dead on with the truth. It was RAMMED through by Democrats with absolutely no...zero...nada...Republican support.

Now, a smart debater would have directed attention away from this point. The point in the debate has now narrowed to being about bi-partisan support of a national health-care proposal. I was sure the President would redirect attention away from this losing point and begin blabbering about how this system will help Americans, save us from the evil insurance companies, etc, etc. But that is not what the President did.

Amazingly, he tried to advance another piece of Obama fiction:

Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. This was a bipartisan idea. In fact, it was a Republican idea. And Governor Romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the nation.
And I agree that the Democratic legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate, but the fact of the matter is, we used the same advisers, and they say it’s the same plan.

The president actually had a strong debate line…about Congressional Republicans taking advice from Democratic legislators in Massachusetts. It was actually a fairly strong comeback had it been delivered as a ‘zinger’. It should have been delivered by itself. Instead, it got lost in the ludicrously laughable line that Obamacare was “a bipartisan idea”. That's right. Obamacare was bipartisan. Not a single Republican vote. Not even a RINO warming up to it. But lo, and behold, it was bipartisan! Midnight meetings. Locked doors. No Republican consultations. But bipartisan...YES! President Obama is the only American I know of that thinks Obamacare was anything close to bipartisan.

The president was clearly on the defensive, trying his semantical hocus-pocus. This exchange showed it clearly. He cannot win on merits or ideas. He can only win on his charisma. And history scarily reminds us of charismatic leaders void of good ideas who get elected.

Silversun Pickups Pick on Romney

OK, I’ll admit that until today I had never heard of the Silversun Pickups. But they had their attorney issue the Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign a “cease and desist” letter. Evidently, the campaign plays their music, or at least their popular song “Panic Switch” at certain events.

I’ll also admit that my curiosity got the best of me, so off to YouTube I went to educate myself on Silversun Pickups. That education lasted about 90 seconds. If I have any reason to question Romney’s fitness to serve as President of the United States, this choice of music would be it. “Yuck” is an understatement, but I couldn’t understand a word of the song. A search to the lyrics was even worse. What’s this about “do your fingers itch” and “are you pistol-whipped”?? Weird, Mitt. Really weird. I can understand it coming from a Los Angeles rock band, but it doesn’t need to be parroted by your campaign. Fire your sound guy!

But, that point notwithstanding, I don’t think the campaign has done anything illegal. Drawing from my radio experience, most venues have licensing agreements (making it legal to play licensed music at those facilities). Like if you go to Royals Stadium, they can legally play lots of music (assuming they have this license). They don’t have to call the artist up and ask for permission. And I know organizations can buy licenses with the major music labels. Churches buy a CCLI license so they can play all the licensed music. Secular venues would buy a BMI license of one similar.

I doubt the Silverspoon Dropouts (or was it the GoldenSun Chevy Trucks? ….urghhhh!) have their music privately copyrighted. The music industry licenses the music broadly. Otherwise every radio station in the country would have to call up the artist and ask if they can play their song. Program directors will not do that, thus the song won’t get played, thus people won’t know about, thus no one will buy the CD, thus your band will quickly be OBSCURE.

These folks are trying to make a political point. And it’s a stupid one. They don’t want to be associated with the Romney Campaign? How about Romney supporters buying their albums? Would they like to issue a “cease and desist” letter to all Republicans, or Romney-leaning Independents buying their product?

Though I wouldn’t touch their music (wrong simile, I know), the Romney campaign using Silversun Pickups’ music shows the best of America. In music, your politics do not matter. Art transcends party boundaries. Their music was appreciated by both Republicans and Democrats. Rather than celebrating that fact and the role they play as musicians in uniting Americans, the Silversun Pickups unforturnately chose to be as divisive as the President they support.

Lessons from 1850

America’s Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union
by Fergus M. Bordewich

This was a very good book on several points.

First, on the level of history it was excellent at bringing together the threads and issues that ravaged the political landscape of the mid 1800s; namely, the slavery/free state debate that affected California’s petition for statehood; Texas’ claim on land in New Mexico; the fugitive slave laws and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This book excelled in accentuating the significant personalities of the period and especially gave me exposure to the role of my native Missouri, via the unyielding personality of Thomas Benton.

Second, it spoke to me on the level of compromise itself. The Kentucky senator Henry Clay was desperate to finesse a compromise and gave his aging and ending life to a cause that would ultimately fail. While he lived to see the Union preserved and did not personally witness its demise, Southern Rebellion was only delayed, not thwarted. Henry Clay, while extolled for his role in this part of American history, is all but a footnote to our nation’s history. His work would be eclipsed by bloodshed ten years later.

Compromise, by its very nature, is a delay only. The book itself referred to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which was totally inadequate to address hostile opinions of 1850. While I can’t immediately recall great political compromise bills, I would posit they are almost universally short lived and short sighted.
More interesting than Clay’s commitment to compromise was, shockingly, the stalwart abolitionist Daniel Webster’s tragic reversal of his convictions in favor of compromise. Webster might have gone down in the annuals of American history as prophetic and stubbornly conviction driven. Instead, he opted for a supporting role in a drama that would foster no statesmen, only sectional politicians who averted a crisis only temporarily.

Third, I sensed, once again, God’s sovereign hand in history. Had the South seceded in 1850, it seems that the North would have adapted to some form of mutual, co-existing government. It is difficult to imagine that, but what is not difficult to imagine is the North in 1850 was not yet disgusted with slavery and not yet ready to fight to preserve the Union. The Fugitive Slave laws reaffirmed by the Compromise of 1850 would give the North a nauseating dose of anti-liberty. Southern rights of slavery would be enforced in both North and South. Northern convictions of liberty would be negated in both South and North. By 1860, the North had had enough.

If the book had any drawbacks, it was that Bordewich edited too much from the speeches. Several times, the reader would only encounter brief excerpts of the speeches and letters of the time which seemed to distract from the author’s well construed “you-are-there” essence. I would have preferred more lengthy passages and think, for the most part, that would have aided in re-creating the scenario. Obviously, we couldn’t read all that was said over the course of some ten months, and the author did a great job overall of telling us the story of a Compromise that held the Union together for one more decade.

Todd Akin Gets Post-Dispatch Endorsement

I came across this editorial from Saturday’s edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a liberal leaning newspaper. You can read the entire article here, but this is the part that caught my eye…one of the reasons I support Todd Akin for the Republican nomination for the US Senate. (vote next Tuesday, August 7).

Which candidate should Republican primary voters support in the Senate race? We suggest Mr. Akin, because with him at least you're sure of what you're getting.

In another era, Ms. Steelman would have been the sort of independent-minded Republican who could have earned this page's support, even in a general election. But she's running a purely dishonest campaign, running away from her actual record as a state senator, pretending to endorse the most extreme positions of the day, and even endorsing the violent rhetoric of some supporters. And her inability to articulate any position beyond a consultant-driven slogan is epic. She is simply not ready for prime time.

As a member of Congress, Mr. Akin was good enough for Mr. Brunner to support financially in many election cycles. The businessman has done nothing to separate himself from the engineer-turned-politician. We disagree with Mr. Akin on almost everything, not the least of which is his support for policies that discriminate against gays, women and minorities.

But he's the most honest candidate. He isn't faking it when he endorses the worst of the GOP agenda. He actually believes it. What you see is what you get.

President Obama Is Very Confused About Taxes and the Economy

Today, President Obama revealed his plan to hike American taxpayer burden another $1.5 trillion. He previous said that was a bad idea.

Watch here:

http://youtu.be/aufAtuTwKlE


And here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-wealthy-pay-fair-share-14555365?tab=9482931§ion=2808950&playlist=2808979

President Obama's Stimulus (Jobs Incentive)

I wish I had a few more economists as friends. This is not meant to disparage the intelligence of those who are my friends, nor to deny that they have some cerebral grasp of capitalistic economic theories, but I just don’t understand the President’s JOBS bill that he recently presented to Congress, the American people and is now stumping for throughout the land.

I have to admit I smiled when a read an article with an acrostic JOBS (Just Obama Blowing Smoke) which probably reveals my rather extreme bias against Stimulus IV (or is it V?). If the proposal is truly about getting the American economy moving again, I propose the following (and I’m serious):

First, cut the proposed $447 billion spending in half—just on the principle of the matter that an economy in peril doesn’t warrant that kind of spending. America’s GNP is around $15 trillion but since I’m not an economist and have no economist friends who would patiently endure my thick-headedness to explain whether that’s excessive or not, I maintain that it is. Being rather intelligent in my own right apart from much exposure to economic theories, I reason that taxes generated on a GNP of $15 trillion would be about 25%, so I’m guessing about $3.8 trillion.

But even as I write this, I thought surely our federal budget would be a better measure and sure enough, with the help of my internet search engine, Wikipedia reports that last year the federal government collected $2.16 trillion in taxes. So it’s worse than I thought. President Obama’s proposal is about 25% of what we collected last year. So, if a family making $60,000 a year is struggling economically, and the husband suggests INCREASING their spending by $15,000, you’d understand why his wife ripped his hair out. Sure, they may need to pay for more education for a better career to start making more money, but if they’re barely surviving now, how will they make it by increasing spending by 25%? So, my redaction of the President’s plan stands at $223.5 billion.

Second, I’d assess a 50% penalty for a track record of government waste. Spend an hour here reading and you’ll agree. It’s so much easier to track $20 than $200. When I go out on a Friday night with $200 in my pocket and come home with $20, I don’t always know where the dollars went (was it the appetizer, the Venti or the sporting goods store?). But with only a 20 in my pocket, I guard it like a pit bull. Now the President’s plan stands at $111.75 billion.

Third, give about half of that ($506 million) to the two major parties (sorry Tea Party, Constitution, Libertarian, etc. et.al). They must split that between themselves ($253 million each) and they can invest it however they choose. If they wish to put it all on one project or a handful of projects or spread it out over the states. But it would be a competition of sorts, to see how they use taxpayer dollars and whether they are successful.

Fourth, the remaining $506 million should be equally divided among the American people. With a population of about 312,000,000, this means every breathing American would get a bit over $1.5 million—none of the Bush tax rebate nonsense (remember the $600 in 2008?). There should be no lobbying for those who are already millionaires to do their patriotic duty and forego the stimulus. They can use it to pay the maid at their castle in Sicily. And no doubling up for poor mothers with 17 children either. Remember, the 17 children will each get a check, so she’ll be more than compensated.

Now, I really am serious about this. President Bush’s idea of a tax rebate was a good one, but the amount was ludicrous. My $600 caught me up on bills. My under my editing of the President’s plan, a family of 3 persons would receive about $4.5 million. I think we’d see some major economic stimulus going on.

Personally, with that kind of rebate, I’d purchase a new or nearly new automobile. I’d take a major vacation (probably more than one), eat out weekly, buy some small farm equipment, small office equipment , go to a Chiefs game, and invest. I'd also seriously consider starting my own business. And I don’t think I’d be the only one doing these things.

I know this seems ridiculous, but I am serious. Why wouldn’t giving the American people some serious cash stimulate our economy?

Bloomberg's 9/11 Memorial Excludes Many

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided not to invite clergy and first responders to the upcoming 10th anniversary memorial of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The mayor's office is citing space issues, saying they are inviting only family members of those who died in the attacks.

Most American's will remember the first recorded death of the Trade Center attack

was that of a Catholic priest, New York Fire Department Chaplain Mychal Judge (pictured here).

Rudy Washington, a former official in the Guiliani adminstration, makes a profound point. "This is America, and to have a memorial service where there's no prayer, this appears to be insanity to me. I feel like America has lost its way."

While laypersons can pray to God (I am not certain any prayers will be offered), clergy are visibile representatives of an invisible God. Their physical presence is symbolic of God's presence. Hence, their exclusion is His exclusion.

The trouble, no doubt, is that once one member is invited, the dominoe effect of "exclusion" gets tipped. If a Catholic priest, then a Protestant minister. If a liberal, then a conservative. If a male, then a female. If Christians, then Muslims...and now the great offense is on. Families of victims of Muslim terrorists exposed to a Muslim imam praying to Allah--who commanded the deaths of the American infidels. That gets messy.

Of course, the Mayor has allowed the governors of New York (Andrew Cuomo) and New Jersey (Chris Christie) to participate. And yes, the President will be there too. All of these politicians will bring sizable staff and security details (so much for the space limitation excuse).

We'll accept the presence of politicians, but accept the exclusion of Christ's ministers. We've come a long way from the days of the founders who decided early on to have ministers pray to God. America has indeed lost its way.

Republican Hypocrisy

One of the most interesting political issues that has been quietly waged is our nation’s involvement with-in-or above-Libya. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m relatively clueless about the affair. And being a semi-intelligent person, that’s part of the criticism our President is facing over his decision (and it is virtually his decision alone) to involve our nation in the overthrow of Gaddafi and his regime. Folks like myself don’t understand it.

In fact, even the Speaker of the House doesn’t understand. That’s partly why he sponsored a resolution back in June requiring the President to give his rationale.

Admittedly, the War Powers Act, which stands at the center of this controversy, is a piece of American law that is both obscure and convoluted. Every American President seems to have been criticized for “violating” it. The interesting part of this saga is that the President, who heretofore has been anti-war, is ignoring it; while Republicans, mostly in favor of using force for international conflicts, are citing it.

So I’m a bit more than cynical. I’m seeing hypocrisy in action.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, all advised the President that he would need to scale back operations in Libya. Not liking that counsel, the President found cover in the legal opinions of White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold H. Koh. Both of them argued Congress could be snubbed and the War Powers Act ignored.

At a June 16 White House brief, President Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, brought the nation’s attention to an April 28, 1999 statement Representative Boehner’s office released. Then, the issue was President Clinton’s involvement in Kosovo. Boehner said then

“The President of the United States is, and should remain, the chief architect of America’s foreign policy and the Commander-in- Chief of our armed forces. As distressed as many of us are over the Clinton Administration’s ill-conceived strategies in the Balkans, Congress must resist the temptation to take any action that would do further damage to the institution of the presidency itself. Invoking the constitutionally-suspect War Powers Act may halt our nation’s snowballing involvement in the Kosovo quagmire. But it is also likely to tie the hands of future presidents who will need the authority to lead in crises with less ambiguous implications for our national security. A strong presidency is a key pillar of the American system of government - the same system of government our military men and women are prepared to give their lives to defend.”

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck countered by drawing attention to a statement made by Barak Obama at DePaul University in October 2007 while he was a senator.

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes,” then-Sen. Obama said. “But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

If Republicans truly believed the President’s authorization of drone-led bomb attacks and an expenditure of $10 million a day constituted ‘hostilities’ the War Powers Act addressed, they should have supported the resolution by Dennis Kucinich. It called for the withdrawal of our involvement and as a “privileged” resolution it would have gone to the Senate for a vote. But Republicans supported Speaker Boehner’s tepid measure instead, allowing them, it seems to me, to criticize Obama’s involvement in Libya without really enforcing the War Powers Act.

So, the liberal Democrats, led by Kucinich, are the heroes of this saga—staying true to their anti-war convictions. Sadly, Republicans, who we often look to for the moral high ground, played the part of hypocrites.


On June 16, the House passed a Boehner resolution by 268 to 145, including 45 Democrats and all but 10 Republicans, requesting a detailed outline of the cost and scope of the operation in Libya. A stronger resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), which would have required the U.S. to withdraw all its troops from Libya within 15 days, failed but was supported by 87 Republicans and 61 Democrats.

Governor Rick Perry: A Rising Star Who Fizzles Fast

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been eyeing the Republican nomination for President and has been quite good at manipulating Religious Right conservatives toward his cause. He is the foremost voice of calling for a national day of prayer in Houston on August 6 and is termed “initiator of The Response” by The Response website.

The groups “leaders” and “co-chairs” are quite the consortium of religious figures in America, mostly dominated by the false teachers of the charismatic, word of faith movement, some of them outright quacks.

Which bring us to the surprises. Don Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, is a “leader” along with Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church of San Diego. Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jim and Shirley Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America are among the honorary co-chairs. Ed Young, Pastor of Second Baptist Church, Houston, along with David Barton of WallBuilders are also named among supporters.

That Governor Perry is using a spiritual event for political purposes should be apparent. This is even more problematic by his recent endorsement of homosexual marriage by individual states, as reported here by the Wall Street Journal. With the solid lineup of key religious faces, many undiscerning conservative Christians will back this candidate, who has declared war on God.

Further, the gobble-de-gook of religious pluralism will ultimately harm the gospel. When conservatives link arms with biblical heretics, we are in serious trouble. And some of America’s foremost pro-family voices have done exactly that.

Democrats Seek to Advance Homosexual Marriage

While President Obama’s popularity ratings continue to plummet over his dismal financial policies that continue to virtually bankrupt the nation, White House strategists have opted to play to the Democratic power base—hoping to shore up some meager measure of support.

The Senate has begun hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act, a pro-homosexual bill, designed to destroy biblical marriage, which was solidified by the 1996 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, was passed by 84 percent of those who served in Congress and was even signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, a supporter of sodomite rights.

Speaker of the House John Boehner said: “This is another effort by the White House to take attention away from jobs and the president’s economic policies, which have been a failure. The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land, and the House will continue with its effort to ensure the constitutionality of the law is determined by the courts rather than by a unilateral action by the Obama Administration.”

The one semi-surprise of today’s hearing, which was called to order by Chairman Patrick Leahy at 9:45 a.m., was Senator Al Franken’s attack on Tom Minnery, senior vice president of CitizenLink, a ministry of Focus on the Family. Minnery was one of only a few witnesses the Democratic controlled Judiciary Committee allowed to testify at today’s hearing. Franken tried to make a point that a HHS study citing the ‘nuclear family’ could have been referring to same-sex couples.

The ranking Republican member, Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) said of the name of the repeal bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, "George Orwell would have marveled at the name."

In fact, marriage, these days, has little respect in our country. While its most aggressive and current threat is from the homosexual community, divorce and pre-marital sex continue to weaken this God-ordained institution.

Claire’s Despair

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood


Yesterday, Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat—Missouri) was in Springfield and had a brief interchange with reporters. Among several comments she gave, she addressed the House of Representative’s recent vote to defund Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. As reported by The Fuse, she said:

“As to Planned Parenthood, they are not allowed to ever perform an abortion with any federal dollars. The money they’ve cut is for birth control and contraception. That does not make sense to me, because we need to be preventing unwanted pregnancies. That’s how we prevent abortions. So, it sense [sic] backwards to me that we would cut the money for birth control and contraception in the name of reducing abortions. Those two don’t mix. I think we need to make sure women have access to birth control and contraception so that we don’t have unwanted pregnancies.”

At the heart of this issue, Senator McCaskill fails to share most Missourians (and Americans) disdain for an organization that brutalizes women and pre-born babies through abortion. Masking her complicit embrace of abortion, she advocates the “educational” arm of Planned Parenthood.

Could you imagine our senator’s response to this hypothetical? An organization in the United States brutally ends the developing life of puppies. These puppies die painful deaths and some of their remaining body parts are even sold to research facilities. We discover that this organization receives federal money. Yet, miracle of miracles, none of that federal money actually goes to killing puppies. The puppy-killing organization actually educates about spaying and neutering dogs. That’s how they use their federal money. Would Claire be advocating we keep federal money going to the puppy-killing organization?

The fact remains that Planned Parenthood is a dark, violent and immoral organization. And despite Senator McCaskill’s skillful distraction, most Americans know it and are repulsed by our forced funding of such an organization.

Vote Yes To Retain Judge Zell Fischer

One of the lesser known issues Missouri voters will be facing is whether to retain Supreme Court Judge Zell Fischer—appointed to a two year term by Governor Matt Blunt on October 23, 2008.

I’ll be voting yes.

Judge Fischer is a 1985 graduate of William Jewell College, my own alma mater. While I am proud of my heritage and of many aspects of the college, Jewell was the first place I encountered liberals en masse. There were political liberals, theological liberals, economic liberals—even moral liberals. I truly grew up at William Jewell College. My Camelot was shattered and I was introduced to the real world in all of its insanity, illogic and Epicureanism. But I digress. Fischer’s choice of college is not the reason I’ll vote for retention.

Nor is it his choice of university for his law degree. That would be the University of Missouri—Kansas City. I didn’t know UMKC even had a law degree program. No offense to Judge Fischer or any other graduate of UMKC’s law program, but it just doesn’t sound too lofty. I suppose I’m predisposed to shiver in the shadows of the Ivy League. You know, that chill that pulsates up your spine when you encounter a lawyer from Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Those places have an aura of brilliance. I guess being a Kansas City native has inoculated me from my own area’s offerings, something about familiarity breeding contempt.

Fischer’s northwestern Missouri heritage isn’t a deciding factor either. Did I mention I’m a Kansas City native? City boy meets country bumpkin. Fischer’s even a member of the Tarkio Rodeo Board. Yee-haw!

And neither would I vote to retain because the Missouri Bar Association recommends it. Their statement reads in part:

“…attorneys who responded to survey questions rated Judge Fischer on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “completely.” Judge Fischer received his highest scores for being courteous toward attorneys (4.54), issuing timely opinions/decisions (4.45), and treating all parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status (4.44). Judge Fischer was not rated below a 4.14 in any category. The committee also reviewed opinions written by Judge Fischer. Those opinions were in accordance with Missouri law. The opinions provided clear and cogent explanations for Judge Fischer’s decision. The Appellate Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee recommends that Judge Zel M. Fischer BE RETAINED."

I’m pre-disposed to do the opposite of what a liberal legal organization tells me to do. Still, the Bar’s recommendation is insightful, especially in light of the controversy surrounding Fischer’s appointment two years ago.

The judicial appointment process in Missouri is a bit complicated. Most people think the governor, like the president, picks his man (or woman) and forwards the candidate for approval. Well, kind of. The difference is that an “independent” committee, the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission gives the governor a list of three names to chose from. So technically, it is the Governor who nominates, but he can only choose from a pool of three candidates that are forced upon him. Supposedly the process is meant to de-politicize judicial appointments. But it does just the opposite. The Commission’s selection process is secretive and the members are selected by the Missouri Bar, a fairly liberal, left-leaning group.

In 2008, the commission forwarded to Governor Matt Blunt, a conservative Republican, two judges from the Western District’s Court of Appeals along with Zell Fischer, who had only been a circuit judge from 2 years. The other two nominees, with the experience and prestige, were viewed as fairly liberal. It was if the Commission was daring the Governor to nominate the inexperienced conservative. He did. Now Fischer faces a retention vote by the people of Missouri—a vote required by law (the first general election after appointment).

But it's Fischer’s recent comments at a gathering of my former Baptist denomination that convinced me the most to vote for his retention. The Pathway reported some of his statements at a worldview conference sponsored by the Missouri Baptist Convention:

“My vision for America is that we recognize that our present crisis is not merely economic and political, but it’s moral in nature. At the root of these times should be the realization that people in positions of authority have walked away from some timeless truths—honesty, integrity, an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, and the simple notion that you ought to treat your neighbor the way you treat yourself, that you ought to treat your colleague with honor and respect for his ideas.

“My belief is that this nation will not be restored with public policy alone. I believe that what’s going to be required is public virtue. That emanates from our traditional institutions—life, liberty, and religious freedom.”

“I want to support leaders who can govern this nation in a manner where they can handle more than one problem at a time. Our forefathers worshipped a very big God, and they knew that our God is an awesome God, and He not only reigns in heaven but He reigns on this earth, and He’s here today.

“The Bible says, ‘If we owe debts, then debt, if we owe respect, then respect.’ Well I say we owe a debt to our nation’s history and the principles upon which it was founded. So the time has come to take a respectful stand. We must not be timid to pursue with all strength but also in a dignified manner what has always been the source of America’s greatness—our faith in God and our religious freedom.”

I think a judge who understands he is accountable to God will make a very excellent judge. I'll be voting YES to retain Judge Zell Fischer on the Missouri Supreme Court.


Other judges who currently serve on the Missouri Supreme Court include Patricia Breckenridge, Mary Rhodes Russell, Laura Denvir Stith, , Richard Teitelman, Michael Wolff, and Chief Justice William Ray Price.

Go here if you are interested in other judicial elections in your area. Judges on the appellate level and higher have no opponents—the vote is whether or not to retain them. Circuit court judges and lower have opponents.

Former GOP Chairman Announces Homosexuality

There’s a lot to be said of former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman’s announcement this week that he is homosexual.

There’s the personal pain of his struggle and his tragic acquiescence to a lifestyle that is physically, psychologically and spiritually damaging. I’m not sure whether he resisted these inclinations for these past years are whether he pursued them privately. Regardless, he has now openly declared himself homosexual and is pledging to help fight for homosexual marriage in California.

But foremost in my mind is that this is yet another snapshot of why the Republican party should not be embraced as America’s savior for conservative Christians. There were whispers several years ago about Mr. Mehlman’s sexuality. One might more clearly understand now why the Republican party has been so ineffective at carrying out a moral agenda.

Two conservative Christians, Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, have written an op-ed piece for Fox News entitled “Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage.” Ah, yes, the proverbial “what will happen to the Republican party if they don’t satisfy the Christian Right?” But when will the Christian Right demand results instead of platform statements?

The Republican Party, while often having a commendable party platform, has been very unhelpful in addressing the issues godly citizens should be focused on.

National Prayer Breakfast -- More About Politics Than Prayer

I just read a few blurps of Secretary of State Clinton's remarks as well as President Barak Hussein Obama's remarks from the National Prayer breakfast.

Not surprisingly, their comments were political, not spiritual, though they took some shots at "organized religion" encompassing true, gospel Christiianity I suppose. All comments were devoid of the issue--that America has departed from its worship of the one true God. Jesus wasn't even mentioned.

Still, God in His mercy averts His judgment on a stiff-necked and arrogantly rebellious nation. May He give us repentant and humble hearts!

I was surprised to learn the history of the National Prayer Breakfast. Interestingly, a watch group called Citizens for Responsbility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had asked the President and others not to attend. The letter is here.

Prepare for Thanksgiving

Kansas City’s Congressional Representative, former mayor Emanuel Cleaver, recently circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter to drum up support for H. CON. RES. 155, a Resolution he introduced this past June. His cause appears to be languishing in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Cleaver’s Resolution is to make the Wednesday before Thanksgiving a “complaint free” day.

Whereas the average person complains approximately 15 to 30 times per day, resulting in roughly 4,500,000,000 complaints spoken every day in the United States;

Whereas complaining keeps people focused on current problems stultifying their innate abilities to seek and create positive, harmonious solutions;

Whereas complaining has been shown by research psychologists to be detrimental to a person's physical and emotional health, relationships, and to limit their career success;

Whereas the `A Complaint Free World' organization is to be recognized for its efforts to encourage people to redirect their minds toward more positive, constructive, and rewarding lives and for its goal to positively inspire at least 1 percent of the global population (60 million people) to become complaint free;

Whereas thousands of people across the United States, including many students, have already adopted the complaint free attitude; and

Whereas `Complaint Free Wednesday' will be observed on the day before Thanksgiving, providing each person in the United States a day free from complaining in order to prepare for a day of gratitude: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) supports the goals and ideals of Complaint Free Wednesday;

(2) encourages each person in the United States to remember that having a positive life begins with having a positive attitude; and

(3) recognizes and reaffirms the meaning of Thanksgiving by asking each person in the United States to use `Complaint Free Wednesday' to refrain from complaining and prepare for a day of gratitude.

Now before I send you on to the pundits who are having some fun with Missouri’s 5th District Representative, I would like to point out one piece of profundity from the former Methodist minister. Did you catch this line: “providing each person in the United States a day free from complaining in order to prepare for a day of gratitude” ?

My point is that nothing worthwhile comes without preparation. Thanksgiving dinner will not. Neither will genuine gratitude. For Christians, thanksgiving is an extension of worship. Because we’ve been loved by God and saved through Jesus, we are to live every moment grateful to Him and His blessings. Unfortunately, we think good, spiritual things will happen without adequate preparation. It’s why many Christians leave the church parking lot on Sunday morning disillusioned. They experienced no enriching worship. They use words like boring, stale, lifeless and other sundry adjectives to describe the thing they gave no preparation to. They live a week without a relationship with God, no time in Bible reading, serving God, fellowshipping with other believers and instead watch impure TV shows and listen to tawdry music. They probably even bicker and argue with family members as they drive into the church parking lot on Sunday morning, believing that some mystical force will suddenly transform them into thankful, worshipping believers. Their problem? Lack of preparation.

And that is America’s problem as well, Our countrymen will scope out grocery store discounts on turkey; they’ll bake pies and roll out noodles and do other various things to prepare for a dinner on the fourth Thursday of November. Sadly, however, they won’t prepare their hears or their minds to give thanks to their Creator for His magnificent blessings.

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him all creatures here below!
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host!
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

So, thank you Representative Cleaver. It may not be the most eloquent of all bills, but it is a refreshing reminder of truer things.

For those who can’t resist cynicism, go here.