Dead American

Just wanted to give kudos to the Republicans for holding back their support for this Auto bailout until they get more concessions from the Union.  The UAW is one of the biggest contributors to this mess.

Of course now the UAW is blaming the GOP for holding back the bailout.  It passed the House and the Dems have a majority in the Senate and Bush would sign it.  Why do you need Republican support?  either the GOP is uber unified (doubtful) or there are some Dems afraid to support it without the Republican stamp of approval, so that if it fails, they all have someone else to blame.

The same issue exists with this bailout as with the Wall Street one.  We’re giving people money who are responsible for failure.  We’re not holding the right people accountable.  The Republicans are finally willing to make that stand.

In other news, a substitute teacher in England this week told a class of 7 year olds that Santa wasn’t real and parents really put the presents out.  Some of these same parents were livid.

“We’re lying to our kids and you ruined it!”

Not an exact quote, but you get the point.

Peace.

First off, I’m gonna get a little negative and review War, Inc. by and with John Cusack.

John Cusack is my favorite actor.  This movie made lose respect for him.  War, Inc. takes every crazy Michael Moore liberal conspiracy theory and puts it in this farce in order to paint the Bush administration and the American military as evil as you can imagine.  As a result, it is not thought-provoking at all and only serves to make opponents of the War in Iraq seem ridiculous.

(There were a couple good aspects of the movie that made some interesting commentary, but not enough to redeem the ridiculous.)

A better commentary, and source for thought, was the movie the Kingdom. Not quite as action packed as I had hoped, but it still ends up raising the issue of how violence begets violence and contributes to a disturbing cycle.  I liked that.  Didn’t necessarily demonize a position or side but raised important questions about the human condition with the backdrop of the War on Terror.

(The Kingdom was a decent movie.  Worth watching.)

Third, I’d like to discuss some fantasy pulp fiction, the Pirate King by RA Salvatore.

I really like his Drizzt series of books.  In some ways, it is cheap fantasy, but the characters are engaging and the stories have really matured over the last couple years.

In The Pirate King, the 2nd book of Salvatore’s latest trilogy, there is this rough and tumble city of pirates and thieves that is being oppressed by this dictatorial witch-king.

This famous pirate-hunter is convinced to take this witch-king down and free the city.  But the question arises: who will take the place of the witch king once removed?  The pirate-hunter eventually does, but the removal of the witch-king allows for other criminal elements of the city to rise up and persue their own agenda, all to the detriment of innocents.

Again, I appreciated the creative analogy, as silly as it may seem to non-fantasy readers.  Certain questions are asked.  I believe they’re valid:

Is the removal of evil always good and redemptive or may it sometimes lead to even greater evil and chaos?  Is it always the right thing to interfere based on our cultural notions of political morality into a separate culture just because we have the power to do so?  Does it therefore make it our responsibility?  At what point does fully understanding the historical context and sovereignty of another culture question our own intervention, either in the past, present or future?

Some conservatives would have you believe asking some of these questions to be unpatriotic and even flat out wrong.  I think it is dangerous NOT to ask them and try to understand a little more.  Some of the pat conservative answers belie a very Cold-War attitude and mindset.

For the Pirate King, I appreciated the idea that the pirate-hunter was a hero, cared about the innocent and freedom and doing what was right.  The witch-king was evil and oppressive and the resulting criminal elements were selfish and closed minded individuals seeking their own agenda.

But these questions remain for the US to truly ask ourselves.  Now that the world has moved on from a Cold War necessity, is it always our responsibility to be the world’s police force?  At what point is our intervention in world affairs fighting the War on Terror and how does it perpetuate it?

I know many in the military.  I know their hearts.  They are heroes and have the best of intentions.  Much good has been done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but disallowing the questions I’ve raised in this post proves just as intellectually dishonest as Michael Moore and those who put their name on War, Inc.

Peace.

Merry Christmas, conservatives!  You have a huge scandal in the Democratic party, possibly affiliated with Obama!  And he hasn’t even taken office yet!

Seriously, this story is everywhere, and everyone is talking about it.  No shock to me, although I giggled when the AP story I read today mentioned that Blogo was elected in 2002 in order to clean up after a very corrupt governor … and that governor is still in jail, I believe.  Blogo might join him.

The Obama manic media is doing its best to help Barak distance himself from this guy … but I’m telling you Obama may not have known what this guy was doing, but he knew the governor pretty well and was associated with the man.  The “I never spoke with the man about this” is as much a lie as “I didn’t know Jeremiah Wright held these views.”

I told someone (I don’t remember who … you don’t have to trust me) before the election that if elected, we would see scandal after scandal around Obama.  He’s been tied to corruption and radicalism like few politicians ever before.  But give the media credit.  They’re working harder than a lipless chick in a kissing booth to cover for him.  I doubt anything will stick, but you’ll continue to see it.

Joe the Plummer said some interesting things about the McCain campaign.  First of all, he was sickened by McCain’s justification of the Wall Street buyout when he directly asked ol’ Maverick John about it.  Joe the Plummer isn’t a liberal, so the chances of him writing a book is slim, but it might happen.  Joe did say that Palin was the “real deal”, however.  Oh, and despite how sickened he was by McCain, Obama scared him even more.

Interesting to me because I’ve said that if McCain had stood against the buyout, he would have won in a landslide.  Hopefully Maverick John really believed in it, because I seriously think it cost him the election.

A woman tried to smuggle a monkey into LA by putting it under her blouse and pretending to be pregnant.  She’s probably a Darwinist.

A cat bit Santa this week.  Apparently, some people take their pets to PetSmart to get a pic with Santa.  They probably dress them up in weird clothes, too.  Story says that the woman bought the cat from a breeder for $1,500.  Okay, that’s ridiculous.

Peace.

So I finally got to see the movie Expelled from Ben Stein.

Honestly, I was a little disappointed.  For a 90 minute movie, I would’ve liked to see some more of the science behind Intelligent Design.  They talked about it, but there was a lot more they could have showed instead of focusing so much on some other things.

Of course, per the title, Ben Stein does a good job exposing the discrimination and oppression in the larger scientific community against anyone who even mentions Intelligent Design or that their research could in any way support it.

Many like to act as if it is the Christian community oppressive against Evolutionary Theory (ET), but the modern situation weighs heavily in the opposite extreme.  Anyone even mentioning Intelligent Design (ID) is blackballed and ostracized from the scientific community.  This cuts scientists from their funding, removes then from tenured university positions and the like.  It is a very facist approach by the evolution dominated scientific community.

The issue is not about whether evolution is true.  Any scientist, even creationsists, will heartily agree that there are mounds of evidence that supports a change in species over time, what Darwin discovered.  The issue is the belief in how life began, the origin of life, what Darwin and later evolutionists extrapolated from micro-evolutionary evidence.  A hugely insane jump.

ID states that, based on an incredible amount of research, life has been designed.  Of course, if something has been designed, then therefore there must be a designer.

Here is where ID is rejected as a religious and un-scientific study.

But to believe that ET can explain the origins of life takes just as much faith.  In fact, every possible explanation that ET scientists come up with to explain the origin of life is more preposterous and scientifically impossible than what they roll their eyes at and mock.

So the issue is not between religion and science, as ET dominated science would have you believe.  It is between two separate world-views, or religious ideas, one of them being a belief in a higher power responsible for the design and another believing that man IS the higher power.

Think of it.  The idea that a single celled organism spontaneously, on its own, rises from the muck and crawled out into the atmosphere and, through billions of years of natural selection, becomes the mysteriously complex being that we are, gives glory not to God but to man and the flesh.  We, in essence, created ourselves by this theory.  We become the creator.

ET as an explanation for the origin of life is the creation myth for secular humanism.  Humanism is the belief in man’s inherent goodness and ability to better himself to the extent of even achieving some sense of Utopia.  Secular humanism says this all happens apart from any silly notions about a higher power.

ET and secular humanism are then the basis for such things like extreme socialism and communism, which have always failed, lowering the standard of living more than they ever raised it, and dangerous studies like Eugenics that justifies things like removing whole races (the Holocaust), euthanasia and abortion.

The question becomes, can someone believe in ET as an origin for life and be a Christian?  Some would say yes, and if you have just a surface belief in one or the other or both, I could agree.

But as Ben Stein found, every ET scientist he spoke with did not believe in God.  One scientist specifically gave a “testimony” in which he believed in God before, but his studies of ET changed his mind; and he therefore no longer believes.  A second scientist explained his turning away from God through his studies in ET as liberating, a transcendent, religious experience.

Now, to be fair, some horrendous things have been done in the name of all major religions, not just secular humanism, but it is important to note that a belief in ET as an origin for life is a religious idea and has had religious consequences.

And belief in Evolution as the origin of life apart from God’s hand and design is in direct conflict with true Christian belief.  Creation by God Almighty supports Christian belief.

As for the movie, I can recommend it, especially more than most of the crap you can get at Blockbuster; my disappointment is related to the fact that I didn’t feel the movie was strong enough to give a non-believer pause and make him or her re-think their worldview.

Peace.

Bully media of the week –

First, we get an AP article detailing how the Bush administration is at fault in the current crisis.  I have yet to see the same attention in the mainstream to the Clinton administration and Congressional Democrats and their actions that also led to this mess.

Second, another article “exposing” Oprah Winfrey and her association with a main Republican donor, even while she publicly supported Obama for president.  This Republican donor gives a whole lot of money to one of her charities, is in fact the biggest donor besides Oprah herself (note: more than any of her liberal friends) and the article exposes this and questions Oprah’s integrity in the process, more than suggesting this Republican of criminal activity.

Where was this detail and vetting of Obama and his long term associations?  Blatantly absent.

Third, President Bush was given a PEACE award for his work to battle the AIDS epidemic in Africa during his presidency.  He’s done more than any other president previously, including Clinton.  And yet Kanye gets to slander Bush by saying he “hates black people.”  Hmn.  Have you heard anything about this award to Bush?  If it had been a Democratic president, past or future, I guarantee front page news.

So I voted again this week. I had some time.  It was quick and painless.  Yeah, I mostly voted for Chambliss because I didn’t want the Dems to get a 60 seat Senate majority, but I don’t know how much it matters.  I don’t have much confidence in the Republicans to get their act together enough to make some real change either.

I’ve been against every bailout for several reasons, but agains the car manufacturer bailout, as well.  Specifically, Congress won’t address the real problems with these companies … unions and over-regulation, both of which will probably get worse as requirements to get the money for a bailout.

The coup in Thailand and the terrorism in India captured a lot of my attention this last week.  Been praying for my friends in those nations and the nations themselves.

Funny story of the week — In a nice gesture of reaching out, Obama called a Republican House representative to congratulate her on her victory and start a working relationship (she’s on a major House committee).  She thought it was a radio prank and hung up on him.

Obama had Rahm Immanuel call to confirm this was really the president-elect.  She laughed and hung up on him again.

The third time they got someone she personally knew on the phone to confirm that this was really Barak Obama calling her.  She felt embarassed and they had a nice conversation on foreign policy.

Ridiculously sad story of the month — OK, so at the traditional site of Christ’s crucifixion, there’s the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  Six Christian sects share the Church.

Well, on Nov 9 of this year, a brawl broke out between some Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks over who gets to go into the tomb of Jesus when.  The Greek clergy tried to force their way into being included and the Armenians forcefully resisted.

These monks threw punches and “anything they could get their hands on.”

Sadly, this happens often.

Yes, for those of you interested, there’s a video here.

Peace.

Despite what some may see as my overwhelmingly “conservative” views on some subjects, I find myself in a funny position with conservatives on the War in Iraq.

Over the last century, up until the time of Ronald Regan, the Democrats were consistently the pro-war crowd.  An interesting mix, they were domestically and socially liberal but very strong on national defense, especially through the Cold War.

The one exception before Regan was Teddy Roosevelt, but I don’t really count him as a Republican.  He acted way more like a Democrat.  He was a hard liberal who also happened to be a Republican.  He picked a fight in Central America so he could build the Panama Canal.

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was president during WWI, a fairly reasonless war when you come right down to it.  To give Wilson credit, he wasn’t a war hawk necessarily, but as allies with Britain and France and popular opinion swaying against Germany, he knew it was only a matter of time.

FDR, a Democrat, was president during WWII.  Truman, a Democrat, dropped not one but two atomic bombs and then got us involved in the Korean War.

Who got us out of the Korean War?  Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican and a general who knew a little about war.

The next major conflict the US was involved in was Vietnam.  The presidents responsible for that debacle?  Two Democrats for the price of one, Kennedy and Johnson (especially Johnson).  We could also talk about how Kennedy’s presidency was the closes we ever got to real nuclear war with the Cuban Missle Crisis … but let’s stick with the Vietnam War.

While a noble cause during the Cold War, the US lost from the beginning.  Vietnam had been yanked around by the French, then raped by the Japanese, then got corrupt leaders supported by the West, all until they were completely tired of Western aggression and imperialism.  Communism sounded pretty good (it does at first … Yes We Can!) and the people were in love with Ho Chi Min.  While we won every battle we fought in that conflict, the hearts of the Vietnamese people were lost from the start.  We had supported and set up too many opressive and corrupt leaders.

So in ‘68, Nixon was elected as president by advantage of a severely divided Democratic party over the Vietnam War.  Nixon gets a bad rap because the liberal media hated him and he was a paranoid grump.  But he was probably one of our better presidents this century … I’d probably put him ahead of all or most of the Democrats.

Who pulled us out of Vietnam?  Nixon, a Republican.  You know what else Nixon did?  He met with Mao Tse Tung.  That was one crazy Chinese communist dude, but Nixon was teh first American president to personally reach out to him and recognize the communist Chinese government … during the Cold War.

Jimmy Carter was the first Democratic president in 50 years NOT to get us into a war.  He was such a weak president in EVERY area that Regan was a shoo-in.

With Regan, you had a Republican president strong on defense and domestically conservative.  For his views on defense, Regan could have been another JFK.  The Carter/Regan transition is where the Republicans picked up this war hawk mentality that had previously belonged to the Democrats.

Okay, so what’s the lesson here?  Two things: first, the Democrats should love Nixon.  He was a cheater who pulled the country out of an unpopular war and met with an infamous dictator.  He should be their hero.  And they should be careful criticizing modern Republican war hawks - there’s plenty of violent war blame to go around in their party, too.

For the Republicans, they shouldn’t demonize Obama for suggesting the very things Nixon did over 30-40 years ago in the midst of the Cold War.

I’m not saying Obama will be a great commander in chief.  I think I have more military experience that he does, but to demonize him as a “cut and run” guy and willing to meet with evil dictators “without preconditions” is not necessarily anti-conservative or anti-Republican or always the wrong thing to do.

One of the things I respect most about Obama is he voted against the War in Iraq in the first place.  At least he’s been consistent.  I might have voted against it, too.  Not because I believe that Bush was a liar or some insane guy after Hussein, but I felt at the time it wasn’t the wisest of things to do.

Before you give me Hannity’s talking points, I understand we don’t want to leave it in worse shape than before, but that could realistically take another decade depending on your criteria.  We’ve done some good things in Iraq, a new government, trained their security forces, improved their infastructure.  Maybe it is time we have faith in what we’ve done and let go.

Peace.

I’m not a Catholic.  Many reasons exist for this, but I have a lot of respect for Catholics.  Those who consider themselves evangelicals could learn a lot from them.

Catholics are strong in two areas: they consistently do much in compassion for the poor … and they are consistently pro-life.

The leading American Catholic Bishops recently drafted their position on abortion as Barak Obama begins to transition into the presidency.  Barak Obama, despite some liberal Evangelical group coming up with a website to the contrary, is as pro-killing babies as anyone in this country.  His policies are downright scary and perverse.  The Catholic Bishops promise to stand firm against him when it comes to this issue, even possibly considering his pro-abortion policies attacks on the Catholic Church itself.

(This is practical as well as theological.  There are Catholic hospitals that, under Obama’s proposed policies, would either be forced to perform abortions or lose federal funding … that’s pro-choice? … These hospitals would of course refuse to kill babies and close down before they would cave to such intimidation.)

Some liberal Catholics (many Catholics did vote for Obama … probably related to a misguided idea that he would help the poor) are trying to sway the Catholic Bishops not to be so divisive on this issue and “lose favor” with the Democratic Party that holds both houses and the presidency.  Hopefully those Bishops are more concerned with losing favor with the God who fearfully and wonderfully made those babies.

In a related note, Obama has promised to use his power of executive order to undo just about everything Bush did, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m sure.  Two of those major things he mentioned are to stop domestic drilling to protect the environment and allow all stem cell research.

I say ALL stem cell research because the only stem cell research not allowed by Bush was fetal stem cell research.  There are actual laws that Bush vetoed and went through the process, I believe (I could be wrong, but my memory indicated there was legislation, not executive orders).  At any rate, Bush did stop the experimentation on FETAL stem cells and liberals love to miscommunicate that action and say that Bush is “against stem cell research” and/or “doesn’t want to help handicapped people” like Superman.

The truth is that fetal stem cell research hasn’t produced any results and doesn’t even promise to.  All progress in stem cell research around the globe, even where fetal stem cells are used, has been with adult stem cell research.  So why the desperation to get their hands on fetal stem cells?

Liberals want to justify the killing of babies any way they can.  This is just one of the ways.  They feel they are, in some weird roundabout way, protecting the “right to choose” and not giving an inch to those pesky extremists that are against killing babies.  To be clear, the new administration doesn’t want us to drill because it might hurt the environment but fruitless experimentation on aborted baby stem cells is a-okay.

This is why I love Catholics, both their dedication to compassion on the poor and the protection of the sanctity of life.  I wish all Christians would stand firm with them and learn from them.

Peace.

Well, it has been an interesting week.  Obama was elected president, and we’re still talking about Sarah Palin.

Really?  I mean, come on.  Let’s think about the absurdity of a press who shrugs off any negative story on Obama (his support of domestic terrorists, rampant corruption in his state and federal positions) and they still report the most inane rumors they can find on Sarah Palin a week after she loses the election.

Really?

Some unknown source says she didn’t know that Africa is a continent … Hey, I’ve got an email with a video in it where Obama slips up and mentions his “Muslim faith.”  You gonna run with that, too?

No.  What we ask Obama is: what kind of dog will you get your daughter?  How do you feel about the BCS?

Hannity keeps saying 2008 is the year journalism died.  At first I suspected he was just being negative … I’m starting to believe him.

On a related front, the Obama campaign kicked off three newspapers from traveling with them, the only three who had backed McCain for the presidency.  I wonder what would have happened if McCain had kicked off all reporters associated with the major networks besides Fox News and the newspapers that backed Obama … hmnn.  By the way, Fox News, the only interview to really give Obama a tough time and tough questions, is also being frozen out by the Obama staff.

These are the actions of a despot, not the “leader of the FREE world.”

In the spirit of bipartisanship, promised by Obama himself on election night, Obama appointed one of the most partisan Democrats around, this according to the New York Times and the LA Times, as his Chief of Staff.  I must have a different definition of bipartisan in my dictionary …

Although Obama has spoken out about Reid trying to get rid of Lieberman as head of his Senate comittee, but who knows how sincere that is and what will happen.  Talk is if Lieberman is openly censored like this, he’ll switch parties.

One of the bright spots this week is the overwhelming kindness and graciousness shown by Bush and his administration.  It is rare for the sitting president of an opposing party to be so gracious so soon.  Good for G,W.

I’m sure Michael Moore is making a documentary on some diabolical conspiracy behind why Bush is being so nice.

Peace.

Now, as you view this, I’m sure that there are many Obama supporters very genuine and grounded … but this has got to be the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while.  I laughed hard.

Link to video here.

Peace.

Hmnnn …  Where to start?

Well, I’ll begin with more natural, worldly thoughts: the Republicans deserved to lose this election for many reasons.  For six years, the Bush administration had a Republican controlled House and Senate and did very little that could justify keeping the Republicans in power.  They were content to play status quo, too anxious of a media ready to pounce at any real revolutionary idea (fixing Social Security, Fair Tax, etc.).

Also, McCain messed up his one shot to win this election.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, he was ahead in the polls after choosing Palin, but when the “economic crisis” occurred, McCain and Palin both responded with the same rhetoric spewing from the Democrats and Bush.  A large percentage of Americans were against the bailout.  If McCain had taken a position against the bailout, citing his reluctance to put more money at the hands of corrupt politicians and CEOs, he would have distanced himself from the Democrats and the unpopular Bush.  After that “economic crisis” and bailout business, McCain fell too far behind to catch up.

You can only assume that McCain followed his beliefs and gut and took a stand where he thought best.  I respect the guy, but I really do think it cost him the election.

I’m not too worried about a Democratic president with a Dem majority in Congress.  Here’s why: Clinton had it for a couple years at the beginning of his presidency and did nothing with it until the Republicans got their act together and made a play.  And as stated earlier, the Republicans also just wasted six years in the same position, twiddling their thumbs most of the time instead of trying to enact real and positive change.

For evidence of the nasty, racist, sexist, and unreasonable division the Dems are capable of, just remember the primaries between Obama and Hillary.

Plus, the Dems have been talkers and critics for much of the last 16 years.  Oh, they do stuff every now and then (like the sub-prime mortgage stuff), but they mostly have tried to influence the system and sit back and let Bush make the decisions.  They will now be responsible for everything that happens in Washington.  They have no Republicans to blame.  This will cause many Dems to run in fright from putting their name on anything.  Their inactivity, along with the unrealistic expectations for Obama, will be a huge problem.  Maybe not enough to keep Obama from re-election, but it will have an effect.

Now on to spiritual things:

God wanted Obama to be president.  This challenges certain theologies and our democratic sensibilities, but just because we get a vote doesn’t mean God has somehow lost the power to raise up leaders as He chooses.

Let me clear, though.  This does not mean that God is pleased with Obama or even likes him.  I’m only saying that God desired to have this man as president of the US for the next four years.

Why? you may ask.  I could think of a whole host of reasons … and maybe they all have a degree of truth to them.  But the real question is what our response should be.

Pray for Obama.  Pray that our leaders will make wise and righteous judments and decisions.  Pray that God will frustrate any attempt at unrighteousness.  Bless Obama in the name of Jesus.  Do not curse him in your heart or with your words.

One reason God might have raised up Obama is to teach conservative Christians to pray for and choose to bless those whom they strongly disagree with politically.  I know a lot of Christians on both sides of the political aisle that need to learn this.  We can strongly disagree with a man or woman on issues, and some of them are very important, all while still loving and blessing that person.  We are to speak the truth in love.  That doesn’t go out the window with politics.

I’m not saying this justifies voting for a candidate with perverse, dangerous, and oppressive policies and philosophies, either.  That’s a totally different discussion, albeit an interesting one.

I’m saying its time the Church learned, as a whole, how to stand up for righteousness and against any party or candidate that perverts righteousness, all while loving and blessing those we stand against.  It is time for us to be the people of character and love we were created to be.  While disagreeing on issues is fine, do not call Democrats or Obama idiots or fools or demonize them.  They are people that God loves just as much as he loves any of us, and any human drawing breath has a chance for redemption because of the power of God.  Do not be like the “tax collectors”, only “loving” those who love you.  Love your “enemies.”

And do not be afraid.  God is in complete control.  He always has been and he always will.  He looks far beyond the next four years, and His Church should as well.  Our hope is not in a candidate or a party or an economic or political system, but in Christ and His Church.

If God brings more tough times, if they continue to get worse, then realize that this is our chance to shine, Church.  Jesus called us the “light of the world,” and light shines brighter in darkness.  Not that I wish dark times to come.  I pray that Obama is a successful president in positive ways, but I also know that God brings dark times just so the Church may shine.

Shine in peace and love.

Peace.