David's Blog

My Response to Ron Paul Supporters

2012-01-21T20:54:00.000-08:00

I have some strong feeling about Ron Paul and his positions as I have been very much into politics since 2007. I'm been involved in the political process here in Iowa and have come out and spoke at my precinct recently for Rick Santorum. There was a large majority of those in my precinct who supported Ron Paul in the caucus, and I wish I could have known and prepared my speech better before that. What I'm sharing below is very much in line with what I would have shared with them if I only knew how things would go. I've also talked to a couple other Facebook friends that are supporters, one a Christian and the other an atheist. The argument shared to me why I should support Ron Paul was basically we don't want the government to have the power to govern us morally because they may not support your values. I'm not willing to concede that the US is no longer able to the nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and have the proper moral compass but I can see where they are coming from. I'm curious how you came to support Ron Paul. I'm going to share a bit of my research so you know where I'm coming from and I welcome you to respond.

I've listened to a lot of conservative and some Libertarian talk radio and I've determined that I can not be a Libertarian but am a conservative and a very strong conservative who believes is the social conservative issues most passionately. Life, and the protection of innocent unborn children, is my chief passion with the others being religious, individual and family freedom, and the support of the Biblical role of government. I'm in believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17). Also the federal government has the duty to allow the citizen to prosper and they must protect its citizens from threats (foreign and domestic) to their life and liberty. I also agree with John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”. I'm in belief that we need to have politicians that must understand this, support this basic conservative understanding, and through a proper fear of God, respect his endowed rights of life, liberty, and basic freedoms (as in the rights from God as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence).

Ron Paul may have some good ideas in line with the founders, and have ideas to help fix the fiscal problems, but he doesn't seem to come out on much of my main concerns as I would. While he says he personally agrees with social conservative views he only talks about states rights to do what they will... that must mean his Libertarianism trumps his private social conservatism. In regards to Marriage this article explains it, for example: "Senator Rick Santorum has strongly challenged Paul, saying: “It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are OK…We can’t have 50 marriage laws.” "Ron Paul: Personally opposed to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but…."

Regards to the sanctity of human life, it's the same exact thing, though this could have a positive effect in many states that do not want abortion, they could outlaw it. I could see an executive order making it the states right to do as they will (that could only last for the term of Ron Paul), but I believe murder of life should be a federal issue and it should be illegal in the union. Some states would probably still provide it and that would be a national tragedy, allowing murder of the most innocent.

What if states want legalizing prostitution, drugs, pedophilia... this all seems fine to him... in fact he has spoken about legalized drugs and prostitution ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes"). Where does this end? This Biblical based article from Faith Facts says that it ends with anarchy ("The Bible and Government").

Now, in regards to providing a national defense, and specifically the threat of a nuclear Iran, this would cause me to probably keep me from voting against Barrack Obama if Ron Paul was nominated: "Frankly, there isn't much daylight between Ron Paul's theory of foreign policy and that of the radical left. As much as I agree with Paul on other issues, he's wrong on this one."
Read more: "Ron Paul Is Wrong about Iran"

To understand the threat of a Nuclear armed Iran see the FAQ at UNAI that says:

WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT A NUCLEAR IRAN?
A nuclear Iran would be a major threat to American security interests, regional stability, and world peace. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the

West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat of the highest magnitude. Iran is led by radical Islamic clerics with history of hostile behavior including a willingness to wage war and to battle the United States and its allies. With a nuclear weapon, Iran would be able to project its power throughout the region, threaten key US allies as well as American troops, and share the technology or the weapons with terrorist groups that target the United States.

WHEN WILL IRAN HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON?
In  unusually blunt language, a February 2010 IAEA report suggested for the  first time that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability,  corroborating suspicions long held by the U.S. and Western intelligence  agencies.  The report acknowledges that Iran has already honed  explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.  A May 2010  IAEA Report stated that Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched  uranium, which is enough material to construct two nuclear bombs.  This  is a frightening development, and it means that Iran now has a “possible  breakout capacity.”  According to nuclear experts, Iran is now capable  of enriching its stockpile of low enriched uranium to a higher level,  and could convert the material into a nuclear weapon within three to six  months.  The official American estimate is that Iran could produce a  nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015. Whoever you believe, the point is  clear that Iran is very close to creating a nuclear weapon. 

Regarding his electability, there is no way that he would be able to survive Barrack Obama's campaign given these things and some of his other beliefs: ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes"). I'm sure I could make a better case but this seems quite adequate for the time being that Ron Paul is the worst of the candidates for president, and reinforces the others as being better, and definitely, to me, it's clear the best in these regards is Rick Santorum.

"Social Justice Christianity" and Crisis of My Faith

2010-05-19T01:40:00.000-07:00

Tonight I saw Glenn Beck's TV special about the Social Justice and it's history which triggered some thoughts I wanted to share. By the way, I thought this TV special was excellent with some very helpful and accurate information about government and the church being allied for "social justice". I really liked Peter Lillback's (of Westminster Seminary) thoughts. It was assuring to my understanding even though I know Glenn Beck is a Mormon and his church has a different Gospel than mine. It addressed Salvation, is it individual or corporate and the understanding of the Gospel and Bible that seems to be almost always associated with politics and redistribution of wealth. I do not hold that the Bible or Gospel empowers the secular government to redistribute wealth through seizing it.

Last year I had a discussion with a friend of mine, rather a fellow I knew from the past that I have been friends with on Facebook. We were arguing (or correcting and rebuking one another) in regards to differences in politics and faith. It seemed he could have been open to discussion but turned out to be not so much. He was correcting and rebuking me based on his understanding of things. I was hoping to be of one mind with him in the faith in the lines of Bible verses I have in the bottom of this post but I'm not sure we were able to get there. We both claim to be Christians so we are called to have a common mind and be harmonious with one another but I believe in reasoning from the Biblical. Correction and admonition can be applied if needed and I was engaged in this at points during our discussion. In our discussion he was telling me that I had got my facts wrong and I was basically mislead by deceived and corrupt leaders (in the church, in politics, and the media). Even though he mischaracterized my beliefs, I focused on the most concerning thing to me, which was how he saw the Gospel.

Even though he claimed to be orthodox theologically as a Christian he told me that the Gospel is all about the Kingdom, doesn't require an understanding of sin as is traditionally understood, that God isn't interested in individual salvation, and that repentance isn't needed to be a believer but was a "down the road feature". This lead to me posted a blog post on the Gospel with my a Bible Study on the need for repentance in Salvation. He also said that a focus on ones eternal state is not Biblical. The facts, when focusing on correctly interpreted Scripture, I believe are clearly not on his side. I did considered his words, argued from the Bible with him while trying to find common ground. I even brought other mature Christians into the conversation and tried to see if we could have correction or some mediation but ultimately I wasn't seemingly able to get anywhere with him. He unilaterally put the discussion on hold claiming to be too busy.

This discussion, perhaps with another recent conflict, triggered a significant crisis of faith where I began to seriously doubt my own salvation. This has never happened to me since I knew was a saved Christian believer (in 1993). After all, I didn't understand how he and I could both be orthodox believers and both be saved if we have seemingly vastly different Gospels. It begged the questions, could one of us, think we are true believers but really aren't? If I just looked at my own self for my present evidence, or fruits, of salvation I found that I had very good reason to doubt my salvation. BTW: I don't believe one can loose their salvation but perhaps one may not be a true convert. Ultimately I have returned to my assurance of salvation. My Christian testimony and Christian story has helped me, and most importantly, I believe the Holy Spirit can and has assured me that I am indeed saved. As Paul wrote, “These Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16; cf. 1 John 5:5-7, 10).

Some of the issues still remain outstanding as I haven't been able to talk to my friend about these things and I think of my friend frequently when I hear teaching on the Kingdom, social justice, politics, and other related topics (as happened again tonight). Is my friend a "Social Justice" Christian or what? I don't know but I would invite prayers for him, as I will try to pray for him when I think of him, and continue to consider these topics when perhaps I talk to him or someone else in the "Social Justice Christianity" camp.

Verses on Christians living harmoniously and having a common mind with each other:
* Romans 12:16 - Live in harmony with each other. Don't be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don't think you know it all!
* 1 Corinthians 1:10 - I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.
* 1 Peter 3:8 - Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude.
* Acts 4:32a - All the believers were one in heart and mind.

Verse on examining yourself:
2 Corinthians 13:5 (New International Version) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

For more on Politics and the Christian, or the State and the Church, see my blog post.

The Latest on the Health Insurance Reform and Abortion

2009-08-20T22:00:00.000-07:00

Thanks for coming to my post! I have chosen to focus on abortion related to the Health Insurance Reform legislation because I am deeply moved by the poor voiceless children in the womb. I am interested in protecting and defending the right to life for these unborn children, from conception to birth. Some of these children would have been my brothers and sisters in the Faith, and I am morally obligated to protecting them. FYI: This desire seems to have directly comes from my Christian faith and fear of God. Before I committed myself to God as my Savior and Lord, I was apathetic and self-centered and didn't care at all for the unborn, but after I was moved by God's Spirit, it was as if a switch had flipped in my heart, and I started to feel great compassion and even had tears of sorrow for the unborn who are murdered and those that continue to be threatened. BTW, if you aren't moved like me before I was reached by God and would like to be moved, then I and would encourage you pray to seek Jesus of the Bible. I can share more about that on request. Also you can see my links on djweichelt.net (and get my email there) to learn more about our need for the Savior.

As I needed to fact check my previous post, following up from accusations of posting propaganda and falsities, and also not researching and even praying, I decided it was reasonable to do more, as previously I didn't do any significant additional research. Now I can report the results of the research from the Internet, including pro-life web sites, whitehouse.gov, Fact Check, and a pro-choice page. I found there are vast differences in interpretation of the bill related to abortion, and because I can't go to the bill itself, and read it in a short time, as there are multiple bills that are too large for to read (the house bill is 1000 pages) and no doubt they are written in complex and perhaps vague legal terms, I had to go with those I trust to do a good job researching and interpreting this (and then verify their research the best you can). All this takes significant time to try to deal with all the issues, however, at some point you have to post to move on and risk not pleasing everyone. Also this takes discernment of the various opinions, so please bear with me if you disagree, as my commentary is the only the most honest and best one I can provide to this date.

My results: My previous understanding was backed up, that abortion would likely be expanded with the current version(s) of congress's Health Insurance Reform bill(s):

1. Abortions will most likely be payed for with the people's tax dollars.
2. Abortions coverage will most likely be mandated to be available to everyone in a private and the public option. This is a huge expansion of abortion availability.
3. Abortion rates would no doubt increase with the mandates in availability and with the federal subsiding of the uninsured (or the poor).
4. There is no opt. out for those that are moral opposed to abortions (aka conscious protection) for anyone, including those in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.).

Note: I didn't use footnotes because my understanding is well document and researched from my primary source (click on this link to see), for points 1-3, from National Right To Life. In the current legislation, which contains a House version and a Senate version, abortion is addressed stealthily in the categories that are considered essential or minimum benefit standards. “Preventive services” is one of the several categories of services, mandated by the Kennedy bill as “essential benefits,” that would no doubt include elective abortion. In the current administration, which is ardently pro-choice, the pro-choice HHS Secretary and the administrators, most of who were appointed by the President, would no-doubt want to allow this. Note: Even if a future pro-life administration comes along after this one, they can not disallow abortion under the Capps Amendment. Even without that amendment and they wanted to changes the coverage, I believe that the federal courts would then be able to mandate elective abortion coverage anyway. Also the current administrators would likely consider abortion as essential as "Reproductive care" as it is considered essential by the President and no doubt his appointed HHS secretary and the government administrators.

These elective abortion mandates are all covered in the public plan, which is for everyone who is not already in a private plan or for those that want to go over to this (for cost savings perhaps). Under the House bill's Capps Amendment however, the people in the public plan pay mandated premiums on the public plan. People would have no option but to buy coverage of elective abortions. That is tax-payer funding under the guise of premiums to the government. Under the Capps Amendment the public option specifically includes abortion with these premiums, and it mandates abortion coverage in private insurance coverage as well. This is an expansion given that most insurance providers current do not provide coverage for elective abortions (see my link for the stats).

In the Senate Bill, under Sen. Mikulski's amendment, groups like Planned Parenthood (PP is probably the top abortion provider), would receive additional and significant private and tax-payer funding. Private insurers would need to fund these organization as well, and there is no clause exempting tax-payer money going to these organizations.

By the way, attempts by various pro-life members of congress to add a Hyde amendment abortion restriction on the bills have been blocked or voted down. You might wonder: Why doesn't the Hyde Amendment cover this already? This amendment prohibits HHS appropriation funds (medicare, medicaid, etc.) from going to pay for abortions. The bill we are talking about will most likely sidestep the HHS appropriations by becoming it's own special appropriation(s). By the way, the Hyde amendment isn't all the secure. It is up for it's annual vote in congress in Sept. and if doesn't make it through congress and the President's veto, we will see abortions covered with tax-payer funding for all the other medical plans the government funds (medicare and medicaid, etc.), as we did before the Hyde Amendment passed (from 1973 to 1976)

There is no abortion opt. out (conscious protection) for anyone in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.). So hospitals and medical providers, that refuse to provide such "essential services" can loose the federal funding, be fined, loose enrollment of patients, and be terminated. Source from a MD. Some may be forced to sell-out literally or figuratively, or even outsource the abortion related services they can not morally perform (this will directly create more demand for abortion clinics in such cases). Note: I heard yesterday that Catholic hospitals make up 15% of the total and there are many other faith based hospitals. Also if there was no existing Federal Conscience Clause (carried over from President Bush), as President Obama has desired to revoke it, then I can also see how individuals could be charged with patient abandonment, loose there license and ability to do there work, and easily bankrupt them and their families (with debt they have from school loans).

Abortion and the Obama Health-Care Plan: the Essential Facts

2009-08-11T10:16:00.000-07:00

I just read this article, and want to share this... the Obama Health-Care Plan pay for abortion with taxpayer money, force faith-based medical providers to provide abortions, make abortion more available, and probably increase abortion rates by at least 30%.

Abortion and the Obama Health-Care Plan: the Essential Facts "by Phil Lawler, August 4, 2009 The following information-- which is not my own work, but the work of astute friends in Washington, DC-- provides all you need to know about the Obama White House plans regarding abortion and health-care reform:"

Homosexual Marriage in Iowa

2009-05-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

Earlier last month seven Iowa supreme courts justices decided that marriage in Iowa should include same-sex, or homosexual couples, overturning the existing law which said it was between one man and one women. Last week the governor took that court opinion and effectively executed it into law, and there are no restrictions other than what was already available for one man and one woman. So same-sex people can get married here or come in from out of state to get married here. If they come from out of state they may not have their marriage observed in their own state under the Federal DOMA act and the states existing laws (30 have marriage amendments and 12 or so others have DOMA laws still in place). As a US citizen here in Iowa, there are several problems I have with this:

1. As an American Christian*, or one with a dual citizenship in Heaven and in the US, I see the most obvious problem here, the problem with legalizing something that God has called sin or immoral (for more info, see "Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective").

*(If you aren't a Christian I hope you learn more about how and why, and make a decision, click here or contact me, or see Why I am a Christian. Also, if you don't believe in the Bible and it's moral absolutes, I can understand how you can not see the Bible as authoritative. How can it be absolutely true? I plan to blog on this more for you soon but here is a links for your own study: Is the Bible Really True? If you have any questions or want to discuss this more please contact me. )

The courts are operating as a secular institution, and they don't have any moral framework other than their own interpretation of the existing constitution. They are interpreting the state Constitution obviously in light of the existing cultural mandates against discrimination and including sexuality in that. Not sure how they are using case law, but I wouldn't doubt that this is part of the reason for their view of right and wrong. They do not see themselves under the rule of the Creator and have fear of Him. If they did fear God they would want to make sure that God's morality was maintained and instituted. This is what traditional morality is about. They choose to be effectively atheistic or agnostic, and independent of faith. However this was not the situation with the courts traditionally. Coral Ridge Ministries published "10 Truths About Americas Christian Heritage" which shares how the move of the courts to the secular, was recent. "The Supreme Court declared we were a Christian people in 1892 and 1933.". By the way, the US Founding Fathers were mostly Christian, and wanted Christian principles to rule: "Historians have noted that “the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document” and the most cited source in Founding eradocuments.". Also "“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” President John Adams voiced this view of the Founders, further stating, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”" Here is an additional source on the Founding Fathers heritage and Christian views: Constitutional lawyer, and conservative radio host, Mark Levin speaks at the FRC. He sites how the idea of being under God, whom our life and liberty come from, is and was central to our countries foundation and preservation.

Also the court's ruling said they don't choose between religions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't operate according to a Judeo-Christian moral view. They claimed that there is disagreement within the Christian church, so they used no religious arguments in their decision. It's true there are liberal Christian churches that endorse homosexuality as not being immoral, however, they do not interpret the Bible in the way that is consistent with how it was written, but in another way, as a revisionist and liberally in light of the current culture (with such a bias).

If we are created, then we are accountable to God (see May 3rd, Sermon from my church). If the government, or state, doesn't submit to God, then it will either abdicate its role and allow a moral void that will contribute the fall of our society with no absolute morality, or take the place of him and institute there own corrupt morality. This is a view held by the founders and is backed by the Bible. The whole point of government, according to the Apostle Peter, was to simply keep the maintain moral social order to separate right from wrong (see my blog post on Church and State - for Christians). Also if you don't believe you are created, then I encourage you to check out this: Case for a Creator and consider Intelligent Design with Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

2. The IA Governor simply agreed with the court and chose to implement the court's opinion, which is not how things are to work. The legislative branch passes laws and the courts interpret the laws according to the Constitution. Because of the separation of powers, the courts don't rule over the others. The Governor should wait on implementing anything until the legislative branch can come up with new laws and also let the people vote on a marriage amendment (as there is such interest to protect the definition of marriage, as in 30 other states they have in defining marriage between a man and a woman). By the way, I understand the governor claims to be for traditional marriage like President Obama is, and promised to uphold it in 2008: “We’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,”. Instead the governor refused to use his rights and responsibilities to the people, to hold implementing same-sex marriage acts until the legislative branch and/or people have a say. Also BTW, Mike Huckabee on his Sunday Huckabee show, said he contacted several top notch constitutional lawyer, in every case they said you don't just have do something because a court made a ruling, you still have the right and responsibility to always make sure the people and their elected representatives are in agreement with it. See this link to his show to the video from the show with Bob Vander Plaats, who is very involved and may run for IA Governor next year.

3. A side note, the Democratically dominated IA congress has blocked the peoples' call for the marriage amendment to come to the house floor recently, so the governor needs to be voted out of office next year to get the executive order to stay same-sex marriage soon. I would support Bob Vander Plaats for Governor to defeat the incumbent, Chet Culver-D, as Bob would execute such an executive stay. The soonest the marriage amendment can be brought up (according to the state Constitution) would be after two sessions where it was voted on in the congress (that equals two years from next year, or 2012). A Constitutional Congress can be enacted in 2010 as well but it's dangerous with a Democratic congress, considering what they might want to put in it, and I don't know how the process works.

4. The legislative branch can impeach judges and the Governor. I would support this, but don't expect it, yet still have asked for it from my representative. I found out about that from Alan Keyes who noted this in his Loyal To Liberty blog.

5. The court decision is not good according to this blogger. I'm no law expert but it makes sense, the courts decision injected sexuality, feelings, and emotions into the marriage contract which originally didn't originally exist, so they are out of bounds. What is the intent of the marriage contract? To allow people to be legally bound, observed by the state, which has nothing to do with sex in marriage.

6. What is marriage? It's something God instituted for man between man and woman. The courts can't redefine this in the Bible or the Bible believing church. They aren't imposing their views on the church now in IA, but they do muddy the waters with a secular / state understanding of marriage. This will lead to the public educational system teaching the moral relativism that comes from such a ruling. Teaching children that homosexuality is as valid and as moral as heterosexuality. This has been done without and despite parental consent in MA to even children in kindergarten (see this documented case).

7. What does it matter otherwise? It does matter as it affects other case law, and opens the door for legal battles in other states and on the federal level. On a personal note, I got married in Iowa but didn't mind much that Iowa was involved, I would not have cared but I can get marriage benefits on my taxes and they want to know for some reason. The benefits I have would extend to others and thus potential lower the benefits in the future to one man and one women married people.

By the way, some consider divorce more of a threat to marriage than this, like Rick Warren, and perhaps they are right, however, the moral issue here will not go away, and people must speak out against wrong morality with their voices and votes (as they have in 30 other states with constitutional Marriage Amendments).

Federally Funded Embryonic Destruction

2009-04-04T09:14:00.000-07:00

Obama issued an executive order to lift the ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. What is embryonic stem cell research being funded? This is very clearly the type that destroys what can be called human life. See a except here from a medical article (that I don't agree with but it provides the information we need):

"Those opposed to research on human embryonic stem cells say ethics guidelines won't make up for the fact that the research is destroying human life."

"Critics of embryonic stem cells for research say other types of stem cells -- derived from umbilical cord blood, adult skin cells, or other sources -- can produce the same result without destroying a potential human life.

They point to recent advances made with induced pluripotent stem cells as proof that embryos don't need to be destroyed to further research.

Last week, several groups of scientists reported developing human stem cells from adult skin without the risk of disease associated with viral vectors used in the transformation. (See: Stem Cell Research Takes Another Step Forward and Two Teams 'PiggyBAC' Stem Cell Research)

But despite the new advances, embryonic stem cells are the purest and earliest form of a stem cell, and the "gold standard," said Valina Dawson, Ph.D., co-director of the neuroregeneration program in the Institute for Cell Engineering at Johns Hopkins.

"Theoretically, it's like Play-Doh and you can make whatever you want," said Dr. Dawson.

Douglas Melton, Ph.D., co-director of HSCI -- a leader in developing induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells -- announced plans to seek federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as soon as the Bush order is lifted. "

This scientist consider embryos, the "gold standard" for this research, and now embryos can be destroyed, and even created to be destroyed, for medical research with federal funds.

Do you know that the government has allocated over 1% of the 2009 economic stimulus bill that can fund this type of research! "The recently-passed economic stimulus bill contained $10 billion for the NIH. Comstock Rick explained that $8.5 billion could potentially go toward embryonic stem cell research." Now isn't $8.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and this is economic stimulus, to me it's not ethical, moral, and a deplorable use of our funds (even a dollar would be deplorable but the scale is huge)! This is a huge jump in money, for example, in 2005, only $39 million has been funded by the government (NIH) for Human Embryonic Stem Cell research. That figure is no doubt bigger. The states, have been putting money into it, however. California put $3 billion over 10 years of it's own state money into embryonic research in a bill in 2007, (that $300 million per year). Note: This is from this Wikipedia article.

This research will expect and lead to new lines (getting new embryos to experiment with). How are these lines created?

While the old lines, that President Bush allowed were from lines that were already destroyed, but restricted even taking "spare fertility clinic embryos". Obama allows anything, including "spare fertility clinic embryos" and "left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts. ". See this article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post, for more information on the terrible potential for ethical problems Obama created. It ends with this great quote: "Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not. "

Obama clearly is giving science all the say in the moral questions and undoing what President Bush did, to protect human life. The science industries are not interested in moral questions but focused on the advancement of the science clearly (and are for profit mind you). This is against the "Do No Harm" creed of the medical community. The president, in the executive branch, is to provide protections to humans as the founding documents say. The government is by the people and for the people, and we have protection of our God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I tend to disagreement on the lack of discernment in the medical article and the lack of convictions on the person-hood of the embryo of the articles I mentioned, this is even universally accepted by the medical community.

Check this out "TRUTH #1 - It Is a Proven Fact: Life Begins at Conception" (from Coral Ridge - Dr. D James Kennedy's church):

"Sixty prominent physicians made that point with great clarity when they issued a declaration in defense of the unborn in the 1980s. The group included Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, a powerful pro-abortion organization; two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; and the former president of the American Academy of Neurology"

"Thirty years later , we know better. Attributing humanity to the unborn can no longer be brushed off as “mystical notions of religious dogma.” To the contrary, it is a widely accepted scientific fact. After reviewing mounds of evidence, one U.S. Senate committee declared:

physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception … marks the beginning of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. The facts are incontrovertible; the unborn child in the womb is a human child. "

In the embryo "The baby’s DNA (a complete genetic blueprint) is established. This determines the baby’s gender, hair color, eye color, skin tone, height, and more.". Given 18 days, the heart begins to beat... 19, the baby's eyes begin to develop, 4 weeks, arms and legs begin to develop, and so on (see this link for more info.)

There is no need for destruction and/or creation for destruction of human life for this type of research if we have alternatives (like using the umbilical cord, or adult skin cells). We have indeed entered into the dark more so, in this federal government's history that doesn't value the child in the womb. The states can still outlaw it (like OK), and I hope they all do but some are not and have moved in the other direction (CA, MO, and MI).

The President Politicizes Stem-cell Research

2009-03-12T13:09:00.001-07:00

President Barack Obama issued an executive order that authorizes expanded federal funding for research using stem cells produced by destroying human embryos. The announcement was classic Obama: advancing radical policies while seeming calm and moderate, and preaching the gospel of civility while accusing those who disagree. . .

read more | digg story

Latest Thoughts on the Federal Stimulous Bill

2009-02-05T12:31:00.000-08:00

I still oppose the bill and see that more Americans, as they learn about the bill, oppose it too. Last week 42% supported it, now 43% oppose it: A Rasmussen poll shows 37% of Americans support the bill and 43% oppose it. Most Americans believe that a dollar of tax cuts is better for the economy than a dollar of government spending. There are forms of "tax cuts" (about a third of the house bill) for individuals, including those that don't pay and Federal taxes at all. There were no business related tax cuts in the bills that I've seen that would give investors new incentives to invest. Such a plan would cost much less than 850 billion, be much more sustainable, and give the sign that America is open for business: Sustainable Economic Stimulus: Repeal Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes

I find that there are some more problems with this stimulus bills (House and Senate are very similar I've heard), even if you ignore all the waste and controversial areas I mentioned in my previous blog post. According to a report posted on the conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation: The Obama administration seems to be doing wrong things... increasing the government programs and spending to save the economy. This would be basically increasing our debt and kick up our debt to GDP ratio by 13% in 2009 and 23% in 2010. Doing this would have a inflation on the short term Interest rates and this would probably increase even more over time. "That would mean that today's mortgage rate of 5.33 percent would be between 6 percent and 6.4 percent. Such increases in interest rates would significantly weaken the economy further and delay for many months any hope of significant recovery." See "The Global Government Debt Bubble Threatens the Economy". This article has solutions but the Obama admistration is on track to do the opposite. SCHIP is another example, of how the President and Democrats are increasing the federal spending unnecessarily. SCHIP apparently has some big problems: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/schip/

The more libertarian Cato Institute quoted the WSJ "$646,214 Per Government Job" and said the government spending is going to areas were there are already low unemployment in the government. Manufacturing and construction have the highest unemployment (not to mention jobs for engineers like me)... for the new government jobs the est. cost per job is ridiculous at $646,214 / job.

Besides the 34% of the bill that are tax cuts or tax breaks for education or home buyers, seems like Obama believes in Keynesian economics (that says spending on infrastructure can help get you out of a recession / depression) but there is only $30 billion spending on roads and $32 billion on a smart grid for energy (that's only 8% of the 819 billion total). I guess the idea is that non-infrastructure spending, all the other governments spending will do the trick. Remember the 1970's, the interest rates were high and Stagflation was in effect... Keynesian was in the model apparently. According to Wikipedia... that's when Keynesian economics was thought to be dead and that brought about the Supply Side economics we saw in the 80's.

BTW: I just heard on the radio just now that the Obama administration predicts the unemployment rate will virtually not change at the end of two years. Currently the rate is 7.2% and they predicted it's 7.0%. So what's the deal with it? It's only going to increase our debt and not reduce unemployment by a significant margin. I found a source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-endgame-What-2010-may-cnnm-14049554.html

Alert: President Unveils His Homosexual Agenda

2009-01-31T07:04:00.000-08:00

FYI: I thought that this was important to share because as Christians we know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if we don't do anything, then who will be the voice of public opposition to the Obama admistrations plans? We can be informed, share with others, write the timely letters to congress and the media... Marriage is God's plan for family and society while homosexuality is not what God wants and it's not healthy for the people in it as well as society, so citizen Christians must oppose this with what we can do, with the fear of God in mind... but this movement affects more than just the military (repealing "Don't ask don't tell") and workplace (anti-discrimination and probably the Affirmative Action status)... it also affects churches rights to hire/fire who they want (and ultimately affect their tax exempt status), outlaw speech/preaching about what the Bible says about homosexuality (could outlaw the very effective Christian ministries to gays too), all the orphan children would not be adopted by married couples but be able to be adopted by homosexual couples and then schools would teach even probably in early elementary school, that homosexuality is okay, natural, and good, and I'm sure there is much more to this...I have blogged on the importance of marriage to our society when addressing Obama as the presidential candidate and believe that we need to up hold the states the have upheld marriage between a man and a women, and have even add it to their constitutions (like in CA)... this is an issue that most people agree with us about except the liberal elitists that have the power to change the federal laws. We must hold our ground and argue on the benifits of marriage to individuals and society. If you disagree, I would like to hear from you... or if you agree it would be nice to hear from you too...

To see the Coral Ridge article, "President Unveils His Homosexual Agenda", Click Here.

It shares about what the President shared on day 3 of his presidency:

His just-revealed gay rights agenda, posted on the Whitehouse.gov website, is a dream come true for the homosexual lobby. Our new president wants to force Americans to accept homosexuality in the workplace and in the military. Plus, he will push hard to pass hate crimes legislation and give marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Here’s a short list of what our new president wants to do:

Pass hate crimes legislation that will criminalize opposition to homosexuality.
Allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions, which will “give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”
Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Oppose a federal constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Repeal federal law to allow open homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.
Give homosexual couples the right to adopt young children.
Fight AIDS with sex education, condoms, and needle-exchange programs.

Right now, the President has the political wind at his back. Most in the media and Congress are cheering for him and his agenda to succeed. That means he most likely will unless men and women of moral conviction and courage stand up and say “No!”

---
David Weichelthttp://www.djweichelt.net/

15 Truths About Abortion

2009-01-27T11:23:00.001-08:00

President Barack Obama is wasting no time destroying the rights of unborn babies. Using warm-and-fuzzy buzzwords like “choice” and “women’s health,” as well as taxpayer dollars, he and those in his administration are working hard to promote the “slaughtering of innocents.” Here are 15 truths about the abortion holocaust taking place in America.

read more | digg story

Obama Bad for Traditional Marriage

2008-11-03T17:33:00.000-08:00

Marriage is a huge issue for me and should be for any God fearing person. I found this link that with legalization of marriage and what's at stake. If you make marriage between a man and a man or a woman, or a woman and a woman or a man, then you have legal precedence to teaching this in schools. When you have it taught you have parents rights trampled on and children can be indoctrinated. Here is one case of where this happened in Massechusets. This is exactly what I am talking about with Obama's solutions of comprehensive sex education (which reducing abortion is supposed to be a side affect, if you believe that).

I also I believe that we need a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution (federal and states), so that judges can't overrule the will of the people. Obama doesn't support this at either level. California can amend their Constitution with this prop 8 that is on their ballot. McCain supports the Defense of Marriage Act which is a good law federally uphold marriage between a man and a woman, and supported by Clinton and an overwhelming majority of congress back in '96. Obama said he would repeal this law.

My views of marriage are from God's Word, the Bible, which shows that marriage was God's intent for most men and women, and only between men and women. It was good and is still good, and it's been part of civilization growth and sustainability since the beginning. My main goal is to live for God and I want to see people and the overall culture more God fearing, for everyone's benefit, personally, nationally, and internationally. Homosexuality has been a sin according to the Bible in ancient Israel, in Jesus's times, and is still a sin today. Why would our states, or government, say that marriage is between a homosexuals? They have political pressure and do not fear God. The will of the people has been to not allow this, but courts overturn the will of the people, even though there is nothing in the Constitution protecting Gay marriage. In our democracy, we should make things better for our children, not worse. We want a better world, and marriage does matter.

FYI: Conclusions from Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences:

Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike.
Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local, state, and federal governments serve the common good.
The benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority communities, despite the fact that marriage is particularly fragile in these communities.

5 Reasons Why Barack Obama Shouldn't be President

2008-11-03T17:24:00.001-08:00

1. He wants to repeal all abortion laws.
2. He wants to repeal laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman.
3. Parental rights are supplanted by the government. Click on the previous link for an example.
4. Freedom of speech will be reduced. Religious (hate speech laws to speak against homosexuality) and political (reinstatement of the the Fairness Doctrine).
5. "Goodbye, diligence against state sponsored terrorism from rogue governments like Iran, North Korea, and others."

If you are interested in more thoughts...

Economically he very Marxist, he wants to re-form the economy and make it more socialist, to "redistribute wealth" through taxation of the top 5% and apparently sending checks to the lower-income, 40% of Americans. This is not what he says but then he's really bad at math and no one on his campaign dares to correct him? 95% of American's get a tax cut, but 40% of American's pay no Federal Income Tax.

Obama's has a lot of bad characteristics:
1. I believe he has used demagoguery
2. Seeks international consensus... empowers international body, the UN...
3. believes in his own ability to change things to create peace vs. the others
4. provides false hope, we can't continue to increase government spending and programs
5. from my sources, he repeatably uses lies and distortions along with his VP candidate, without any recourse from the main stream media (of course, I can put together something for this if asked)
6. seems to allow himself to be idolized?! ("god for the godless" Rush Limbaugh)
7. associated with a former terrorists, an Anti-American, racist radical pastor, a convicted felon

Obama's Abortion Extremism

2008-10-20T18:04:00.001-07:00

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket. Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in America

read more | digg story

Sarah Palin for VP

2008-09-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

Don't know if you got to see Sarah Palin speak at the Republican National Convention last week but she did impress me and many. She did a lot for people like myself to get excited about the Republican ticket. I've heard a lot of people are excited now because McCain could have picked a pro-choice VP and a much less conservative VP. She's not running for president but she seems to be the future of the party and the Conservative movement (that includes Pro-life as a non-negotiable and the movement, I strongly believe, is the much better way to keep us free and safe than the alternative major candidate, Barack Obama). I know many with the fear of the Lord in the Conservative movement and that encourages and inspires me, as the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10)

I thought that this video link (that I was just forwarded by a friend, the video was from the School of Ministry, Master’s Commission Wasilla Alaska from June of this year) was very interesting in regards to her faith...

"SARA PALIN VIDEO: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1766638341"

It's also on You Tube as well without the intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

Sarah was introduced by a leader from the Wasilla Assembly of God church:

Sarah Palin loves Jesus and puts Jesus Christ before her job as governor
Grew up in an Assembly of God Church where the pastor lead her to Christ where she was baptized when she was young (had a Christian family)
She loves her Husband and Children

She spoke as a Christian woman and said:

that what she can do for Alaska with helping providing funds for policemen, and some other government programs and services she mentioned, and said they don't do much good unless people hearts are right with God.
asked for prayers for the government work to be done (including coordinating the installation of a pipeline and the military efforts)
shared "a word" given to her for the students at the Masters "Ephesians 1:17". "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[a] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."

I found a link from the church that she was a member since 2002 but no longer is a member and Wikipedia (click here for that Wikipedia link) says "Her current home church in Wasilla is The Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation" and "When she is in the capital, she attends Juneau Christian Center,[120] another Assemblies of God church." This Bible church believes in the "inspired, inerrant word of God." according to this Newsweek article.

There will no doubt be fall out over this video and her evangelical Christianity views (as we have seen before), she'll be questioned by the liberal media sources about her beliefs, where she may be tempted to say something to compromise her faith but she, as my sister in the faith, is in my prayers and has my support and I hope you will pray and support her too.

Ice Age Now!?

2008-08-20T22:16:00.001-07:00

Wow, I just heard on the radio that we may be entering an ice age. In the last year we have seen 100 years of global warming wiped out according to the data from "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) ". There is another article linked that says that global cooling is much worse than global warming. I wonder if Al Gore and the environmentalists will change their focus now and back off of carbon emission regulation. There is probably little we can do to protect ourselves by regulating industrialization to stop global cooling. The money used to heat the colder parts of the earth will no doubt require lots of money that could have been used to fight the supposed man-made global warming pollutant, CO2 (taxed and used for alternative energy subsidation development and transition from carbon based fuels).

Some points:

Anecdotal evidence of cooling with all the record breaking low temps (with the record precipitation amounts) are now backed up by the data from all the temperature tracking outlets
Solar activity has weakened in the current 10 year period and is predicted to weaken in the next 10 years
Temps have dropped 0.9 degrees F over the last 12 months and may fall to 2.6 degrees F over the next two decades which would be more than the warming over the last 100 years

See this link.

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

2008-02-28T21:52:00.000-08:00

I just saw "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", a documentary that shows evidence, expert opinions and many examples of the nature and the breeding of the incensed, hate-filled and murderous, false-religion inspired radicals. It tells why we have to take this threat most seriously (and most of our media is not at all, if you aren't yet aware). Our civilization (with all nations included, especially the Western nations) need to be prepared to fight this as it seems we are in some deep trouble considering the numbers that support militant Islam (up to 180 million people, note: 1.2 billion million are in Islam with 10 to 15% as an estimate). Note: there are many more than 180 million that are anti-American and anti-Israel. We could easily be facing something worse that Nazi Germany, a potentially greater threat than anything we have faced before.

Please check out this documentary if you haven't seen it yet. Interesting that it is posted on You Tube: Check it out on You Tube. You can check it the movie at this site (streaming to your PC for $5 or can be ordered) Link to the Obsession Web page with a trailer.

"Obsession is without exaggeration one of the most important films of our time. " Glenn Beck, CNN Headline News

Joel Surnow Executive Producer, 24
"Obsession is both scary and riveting! Each and every one of us should feel obligated to show Obsession to as many people as we can. Obsession should serve as a wake-up call to the free world to confront the threat now, before it is too late."

"Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, also called Obsession, is a 2006 documentary movie about Islamist teachings and goals which uses extensive Arab and Iranian television footage. Obsession compares the threat of radical Islamism with that of Nazism before World War II, and observes the parallels between radical Islamists and the Nazi Party during the War, specifically Adolf Hitler's relationship with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as an inspiration for radical Islamic movements in the Middle East today.

The film features analysis by notable counter-terrorism figures such as Nonie Darwish (the daughter of a Fedayeen soldier), Alan M. Dershowitz, Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Martin Gilbert, Caroline Glick, Alfons Heck, Glen Jenvey, John Loftus, Salim Mansur, Itamar Marcus, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Tashbih Sayyed, Walid Shoebat, Khaled Abu Toameh, Robert Wistrich and interviews with Israeli officials and a former PLO operative." From Wikipedia under "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West"

Relax! There are only 91 million jihadists!

2008-02-27T22:23:00.001-08:00

A Jihadwatch take on the new poll released that shares some new and important data on Radical Islam numbers. This quoted media article raises some good points but doesn't take it far enough.

read more | digg story

The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable - Head of the U.S. (GAO)

2008-02-27T08:38:00.001-08:00

David Walker is traveling the country to bring the message about the current unsustainable way of life. Called in D.C. "the dirty little secret that everybody knows". So what? We need to realize that we can't keep on spending like we have, personally and nationally. Personal debt is a huge problem but it's not nearly as bad as the government's spending problems. New government expenditure / programs won't solve this problem, or even taking all income and savings from the "rich" won't fix this problem. We have a deficit of immense proportions, and too much promised in social security and Medicare and other medical coverage programs, with the glitch of baby boomers, with rising medical costs, we have no solutions. David Walker said we will be bankrupt soon if we don't take immediate and incremental action over the next 20 years. This is a huge moral issue that will guarantee the destruction of this country as we know it for the next generations if we don't try to solve it soon. None of the political candidates are willing to communicate this. Puts a new light on Barack Obama and Hillary's plans to expand government entitlement programs (universal healthcare, etc.). Also how in the world can we have CO2 cap and regulation (basically forms of taxing and reducing production perhaps) not push us into bankruptcy faster (especially if we have to increase the cost of energy unilaterally).

read more | digg story

Who Is “Fascist”?

2008-02-21T22:56:00.001-08:00

The abuse and proper use of a political label. By Thomas Sowell in National Review Online where he shares about "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Very important to understand how the liberals (or progressives) would "change" the country considering the roots of fascism which they largely come from. "Liberal Fascism" sounds like a timely and excellent book, written for the progressives. I have been learning about it from the author from my favorite sources, Glenn Beck, Medved, and Hewitt shows. Obama and Hillary would move us towards a system that is more socialist and in fact more like a fascist nation. Frightening to me. This movement must be exposed, based on history, and the book does this. Action, "door-to-door", is needed to share this information and open people's eyes before it's too late.

read more | digg story

Global Warming - Revisited

2008-02-14T23:14:00.001-08:00

If you have been following my blogging sites you will see that I am very concerned about global warming, most specifically related to the burning of burning fossil fuels (creating CO2). CO2 is now considered a pollutant by the supreme court and politicians are working on the regulation. It's now assumed that we can must control this gas and it's directly linked to the catastrophic warming of the earth. No doubt there are other things that would be regulated after CO2, if we still have the money, but this is the first. I have been very concerned that people are being misled by Al Gore and the rhetoric of other politicians, problematic or corrupt scientists, the left leaning main-stream media, the UN scientific body, and the nativity and ignorance of the uninformed.

Recently even I heard a Vineyard pastor teach that it's real and there is no debate, and we must be involve. I've heard in the last week or so that Al Gore was in a Baptist church teaching his Inconvenient Truth message with Bible verses included. Not only Al Gore and the radical environmentalists are moralizing and stirring up fear on this but recently President Bush and the Presidential candidates are making this a front and center issue, including leading Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain. President George W. Bush has reinforced the belief that man is behind climate change is trying to solve the problem and has a comprehensive plan in that I added up lots of money and boasted to spend at least $11.3 billion per year on it. Some of this was already is in place, but it's seems to go beyond what I would want my government and tax dollars to go for.

Note: President Bush's plan assumes we have to reduce CO2 by 18% within 10 years, keeping in step with the guidance from the Kyoto Protocol. There is a lot of research involved, funding committees and data gathering, asking (not forcing) businesses to participate, has a carbon credit system with trading, all while trying maintaining a growth economy. Glad he's trying to look out for our economy at least.

Do I agree with all this concern and special effort? No, it's not encouraging but is motivating for me to learn more and share what I know. What do I know that most people don't? I have a scientific background and have done research from various sources on the matter. I also have a concern for economic stewardship as well environmental stewardship, both as important before the creator and God. What if we are wrong, and we don't do anything to fix a problem that isn't real, and put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage in a global economy? We have huge economic problems with our national debt, national deficit, and the bankrupting of our government with our entitlement programs.

Note: however, I support a plan to get us off of foreign oil and I agree with energy independence for economic and national security reasons.

Here are some of my sources, that I would like to share:

Doesn't everyone say the debate is over? The debate is not over. It's just that one side says it is and refuses to debate. You want to get in on the other side (man-made CO2 isn't to blame) from degreed climate experts? Check out the You Tube post on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary from the UK (this link is just the beginning of it). The documentary web site gives more information as well. It has scientists that present a contrary view based on climate science than the "accepted scientific truth" (or "scientific consensus"). In Australia on TV there was a debate over this film, and it shows more about the film from a critical perspective, and shows that there are scientists and researchers still willing to debate, contrary what you won't get from US TV or cable (other than from Glenn Beck). Here is a link to the debate.

Glenn Beck has been providing me lot's of my sources to understand this from the other side of the debate. I searched You Tube and founds some good ones:

1. "Exposed Climate of Fear" special by Glenn Beck.*
2. "Exposed Climate of Fear" conclusion in his special by Glenn Beck.
3. John Coleman, famous meatorologist, founder of the Weather Channel, on Glenn Beck tells how global warming is a scam. He says that is created by the scientists to make a living on pop science but they can't come to non-PC conclusion and hope for funding. The money is there if you supporting the party line. John did the research and found it's Bogus science. 19,000 signed a petition against Global Warming. In John Coleman's rant on the scam of it all he said: "The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend."

Sen Inhofe, former chair of the Congressional environmental committee, speaks this is very straight forward way, the politics about it and how it's the sun that's causing global warming. Also talked about him changing his mind from belief in man made global warming to not, when he understood the enormous tax burden on the American people, and he looked at the others side of the debate. See Sen. Inhofe talk about what he calls junk science and a religion (on You Tube).

More from John Coleman: "Is Global Warming Melting the Arctic Icecap?"
"The Arctic Ice melt media blitz in the late Summer of 2007 was a classic example of how the media and environmentalists are virtually promoting Global Warming with religious zealotry. When the predicted Global Warming enhanced hurricane season failed to materialize, they turned their attention to the North Pole. "

Huge Ross, the Christian physicist, saying slow down: "Global Warming -- How concerned do we really need to be?"

In conclusion, there is good reason to be skeptical of the man made CO2 global warming scare. I'm not into big government or global governance, which this belief would move us toward. I believe I shouldn't jump on potentially economically destructive and futile regulation bandwagon to "save the planet", and nor should you. Please spread the word, and encourage the debate, because our economy that we hand off to our children is at stake (not to mention the fate of popular science, accountability, and the truth). This is a moral issue considering how the economy is liked to our well being, freedom, and our children's welfare in the world. Poverty and debt, caused by the corrupt or ignorant, based on junk science.... that's just wrong.

Dangerous Demagoguery of Obama

2008-02-13T19:33:00.001-08:00

Thomas Sowell draws parallels between Obama, Hitler, Lenin and Mao, pointing out that his mantra of "change" does not indicate what Obama plans for the US and the world. Is Obama asking for a "blank check in exchange for rhetoric"?

read more | digg story

Selling Arm to Saudi - Must be Stopped Now

2008-02-12T12:11:00.001-08:00

"Last month, the president announced his intention to sell Saudi Arabia some of our most sophisticated weapons. This is a bad idea, and you should let your representative know it right away... Congress has until this Thursday, February 14, to disapprove the sale."

read more | digg story

AP: Evangelical leader endorses Huckabee

2008-02-07T23:14:00.001-08:00

James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, backed Mike Huckabee's presidential bid Thursday night, giving the former Arkansas governor a long-sought endorsement as the Republican field narrowed to a two-man race.

read more | digg story

Mike Huckabee "Responds" to Dobson: I Would Vote for McCain

2008-02-07T20:25:00.001-08:00

Pro-lifer Mike Huckabee responds to Dr. James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and others saying he would vote for possible Republican nominee John McCain over pro-abortion Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. "There's no way that a true conservative would vote for Hillary Clinton."

read more | digg story

Hillary in ’08 -- Counting on the Catholic Vote

2008-02-06T00:36:00.001-08:00

Hillary's biggest issue securing the Catholic Vote is her view of abortion according to Paul Kengor who wrote a spiritual biographies of Bush, Reagan and recently on Hillary called "God and Hillary Clinton". This article describes Hillary's views on abortion in a very eye-opening way including her encounter with Mother Teresa in 1994.

read more | digg story

Barack Obama, More Concerns: Faith and Social Issues

2008-01-27T22:43:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama comes across as being a moral and decent, even a spiritual, candidate (see my previous post). He uses his beliefs to motivate people, as talks about issues in terms of morality and rights, then how we should vote and empowering him to take action through the state. He uses terms like "hope" and "change" regularly with the understanding that he brings these things in the best possible form, among the lesser choices. Even though he no doubt brings hope to some, I have some sharps concerns concerning him, with his past and his affiliations. I believe that character is important and I am not aware of how this information is being openly discussed, so here are some points I want to address:

1. The Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act
2. His church
3. His pastor and spiritual advisor

1. An article by Jill Stenek on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act showed how "Obama had been the sole senator speaking against Born Alive on the Senate floor in 2001 and 2002 and had single-handedly killed it in a committee he chaired in 2003". "In fact, Obama's position against Born Alive was what persuaded Keyes to run against him in the first place. It was also why Keyes famously alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, a comment that apparently haunts Obama since he continues to write and speak about it."

He voted against this very basic bill with protects infants born alive. Now that this bill passes in 2005, infants are legally protected as living human beings and will be treated as such receiving medical care vs. being shelved to die, which has been happening apparently. Here is a list of 10 things he said about why he didn't support this bill at various time. This is very indicting of his character in my book. I want to protect human life and human rights of infants, and I see this candidate is as bad as you can get.

2. His church is Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC). The UCC is perhaps the most liberal of all the Christian denominations. They seem to take liberal stances on social issues which in fact contradict what the Bible has to say. How is this church liberal?

Proudly shares how it was the first church to ordain a openly gay minister in 1972.
Supports same sex marriage: "In July 2005, the 1.2-million-member UCC became the largest Christian denomination to support marriage equality, when the UCC's General Synod, meeting in Atlanta, endorsed a resolution calling for full equal marriage rights for same-gender couples. "
Their ONA movement encourages gay, lesbians, bi-sexuals as members, leaders, employees, etc.
Stands for partial birth abortion recently and stands for abortion right for 35 years.
I haven't done much more research because their Web site doesn't have things in black and white, there are lengthy articles or very little stated at all, leaves me to see them as a fluid movement, not wanting to be bound to the Bible as a fixed document, that can be clearly interpreted.

My view of scripture would not allow me to partner with this church in issues of reaching the lost, reforming the church, and greater culture. Does Barack believe all these things? I don't know, he seems to say or imply "no" personally, in some cases, but I doubt his genuineness beased on other things he has done or said. He maybe trying to play both sides, clearly. For example, Barack said he doesn't support gay marriage (but does support civil unions). Perhaps his local church isn't as liberal as others? So what about his local church?

Trinity's UCC is a different church that emphasizes the black people and African continent. It's rooted in it's Black liberation theology. Check out the About Us link to see it for yourself. The main pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., was on Hannity and Colmes was questioned if his church is part of a black separatist movement. Wow, this is a revealing interview. Check out how he responds to the questioning. He was definitely angry and defensive. This pastor definitely has some "issues". Not saying he's a racist neccessarily, not sure, you be the judge, perhaps related to his liberation theology and political beliefs.

BTW: I agree with Hannity that we should be united in Christ and not having a singular race perspective. If you replace all the words "black or African" with "white" in the church Web site, you would have a serious, and rightly, an outcry of racism that is inherently not Christian.

Wikipedia talks about Black theology "As with all liberation theologies, black theology focuses on those who are perceived as oppressed and/or poor. Through its intentionally particular lens, black theology seeks to contribute to the liberation of black peoples.". So the question for Barack Obama should be, how does your church theology and teachings affect your understanding of leading various Americans? Black, White, Hispanic, etc., will you favor policies and legislation specially for the black Americans? How would this affect your relations with the African continent and African people? Perhaps there would be some positive impact with his concern for Africa, however, there are those in Africa that do hate America (Muslim Jihadists for example). Also the issue related to black sepratism should be asked, considering how Christianity is not so much focused on race, as his church is. Jesus wasn't such a political figure, as the Pope John Paul II said, however there may be nothing wrong with liberation theology if it's not taken too far.

3. His pastor - more on Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

The Washington Post reported that Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's spiritual advisor, was involved with Trumpter Magazines award to the controversial, Farrakhan: "Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness.". The article goes on to say "For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. ", and "Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies.".

This article goes on about with the Rev. praise for Farrakhan: ""depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."" This shows how this particular man has a large lack of discernment at best and at worse is really poor example of Christian leader, when it comes to racial reconciliation.

To Obama's credit he distanced himself from his pastor in regards to Farrakham, according to this post. So this issue is one that shows Obama can act independantly of his pastor but it still shows how Obama's relationship complicates Obama's candadacy for the president.

McCain for the Republican Nominee? Please No...

2008-01-14T18:32:00.000-08:00

McCain seems to be the front runner now in the Republican race for the 2008 presidential candidate. While McCain has a good record on the war in Iraq, and may come across as good potential commander and chief, and even my he comes across as a great man, he seems to lacks the foundational guidance that would make him good on many other issues. I heard Michael Medved agree that he doesn't seem to have core values that other candidates have (conservatism, Judeo-Christian framework, etc.) and seems to be all over the place on things. Not everything McCain has done has been good but he's getting a lot of press, so what would give me pause voting for him in a primary?

1. Don't believe he is a trustworthy Social Conservative. Rick Sentorum a pro-life Christian Conservative Republican, who I heard on Hugh Hewitt's show recent, was in the Senate with McCain for 12 years and said that McCain behind closed doors argued against every social conservative issue because he wasn't comfortable voting on them. Publicly McCain never championed any social conservative issues. In fact McCain supported the bill (with Hillary and Obama) for Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell research that was ultimately vetoed by President Bush (I blogged on this in the past). This is inconsistent with his statements on his Web site. I don't believe his Web site because of that vote. Also of note, he has recently come out and said Row vs. Wade should be overturned. This is new for the 2008 election, can you trust his change in opinion and his ability to fight for the change?

2. McCain-Feingold Act. I am actually a bit outraged by this affront on the freedom of speech and first amendment rights. McCain stood clearly and vocally against the pro-lifers in Wisconsin. Affected not only big business but Right to Life advertisements and other grassroots lobbyists before an election, the making issue advertisements illegal 60 days before an general election and 30 days before a primary. WI Right to Life fought this and they got an exemption for grassroots lobbiest organization via Supreme Court 5-4. Now, despite McCain's work, pro-lifers wanted to be able to advertise on TV before the election about about the stances of a candidate, when it could actually make a difference! Here is a link to learn more: Supreme Court Slaps McCain-Feingold

3. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment twice (2004 and 2006). "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," Dobson said on the Jerry Johnson Live radio program, which is hosted by Criswell College's president. "... He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him." McCain claims to for the states make the decision.

4. McCain believes in Man Made Global Warming and argues for federal legislation be done ("Cap and Trade" on corporations or consumptions taxation from what I've heard). He emphasis should be on more energy independence and not backing this liberal movement based on brute political force, distortions and fear, with the unproven scientific conjecture. Here is some of what he stands for.

BTW: The founder of the Weather Channel and meterologist, John Coleman has an 8 part set of articles on Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming is a Scam, or you can search my blogs for more on Global Warming, for example: Global Warming -- How concerned do we really need to be?

BTW: McCain also opposes drilled for oil Anwar AK as well and his solution, when I heard him on the radio today, didn't include Nuclear power.

5. His hateful angry outburst show he has some core problems with anger and self-control. Do you think he's the right guy when you read about all the times that he went off, swearing, on blistering personal attacks on other people? Sure, it's fun to watch this guy put people down sometimes but it's wrong, and not right for the president to be one of these people. See this article: McCain's Out-of-Control Anger: Does He Have the Temperament to Be President? by Ronald Kessler. He was really out of control in one of the debates, picking on Romney even... check out You Tube.

I will give him credit for being great on the war:
1. Inspired by him on his stand on the War in Iraq. See my blog.
2. He has some good ideas on his Web site that you can explore if you want (I only look briefly at heathcare and the issues I mentioned above): http://www.johnmccain.com/
3. Not sure how he is with taxes but I know he's good with spending. He fights pork barrel spending (claims to have never taken any pork for his state). He also voted against the presidents tax cuts (claimed that we needed spending cuts with that). I've heard that this is a problem with him but at least he's trying to protect the budget.

Who is Obama? Starting with Faith and Social Issues

2008-01-06T19:00:00.000-08:00

I believe that Barack Obama is someone that we must learn about (no matter your political persuasion or affiliation) as he did very well in the IA Caucus and he is expected to do well in other Democrat primaries. If he wins in the primaries he will be the Democrat presidential candidate and he may capture the excitement of the press and people all the way to being the 44th president of the USA. What does he stand for? Here are some things that I found related to my time studying him (watching a remarkable speech on faith, "Call to Renewal", some of the Keyes - Obama debates in the 2004 IL Senate race on You Tube, and using his own Web site).

He is not ashamed to be associated as a progressive (what conservatives often call as liberals). He claims to be a Christian and even has a testimony of his conversion (see that speech on faith linked above) but is not a conservative Christian. He even has put down people like Pat Robertson or Alan Keyes publicly, as ones that misuse their faith to gain political power or points. Clearly he is a committed liberal Christian church-goer that doesn't preach the Gospel that I understand clearly based on his public emphesis, though he did say that Jesus died for our sins in his speech. He has a social justice emphasis, that is common in the African American church and in the Democrat party. He seems to also have a pluralistic view of all faiths as equal that encompasses all faiths in his dialog that makes me uncomfortable. His faith is connected to his lifestyle very much but it's different from mine.

Social Issues
He is pro-choice and supports homosexual civil rights (seems to be that homosexuals can have the same legal rights as married people without being married). He would support hate crimes legislation as well (which has been used to control religious free speech in other countries). I've heard him says that he doesn't support abortion and gay marriage based on personal reasons related to his faith, but his personal views do not impact his role of government beliefs. He claims that he won't use his faith to impose on others what to do. He said he wants to use common sense things that have appeal across all faiths, and believes that the Constitution mandates a separation of church and state. With that said, he said he wanted to not have separation when it comes to social issues, and wants to have more faith in the public sphere. He even sites Lincoln, Douglas, and others as examples of how personal faith related to morality should be used in the public sphere. With this point, he wants to get us all to engage in governmental solutions to social issues (like poverty, heathcare, education, family, jobs, etc.). I agree that these issues are important but disagree that creating a larger government bureaucracy that has proven to be infective and inefficient with tax payer money and programs (they can't manage a budget, social security, and even veterans' healthcare). A larger bureaucracy could easily tilt us into a economic downturn (that effects our way of life, children's way of live, and has side effects that affect our ability to be a great nation, including our national defense, and worldwide charity, and positive leadership for freedom).

He does seem to understand the importance of the family and having a mom and a dad in the home but doesn't say that religious faith and values are important to maintaining a family and then therefor solving all these social problems. He implyes that we all have responsibility to empower the government, but that seems dangerous to me. I wonder how much a secular government can help families without defending and supporting the basis of morality which is cultural supported Judeo-Christian ethics, without creating a secular nanny state... perhaps by appealing to the Judeo-Christian heritage of our Founding Fathers is the key (which is a conservative point of view). He seems to use the basis of common sense or is it natural law, which does have appeal to many. There is something that he understands about common sense that I agree Conservatives would work harder to appeal to vs. their religious text, that can divide.

Also of note: I heard him the debates in 2004 and in a speech in 2006 that he judged religious leaders and political figures as being wrong in their usage of faith in politics. These people he picked are conservative Christians (that I am one of) that believe in the Bible (in a non liberal way). I see how he has put down those who see homosexuality as a sin and aren't afraid to share that, as gay bashers or ones that are haters. This rhetoric is divisive, inappropriately spoken, and yes, I will say, morally objectionable, and thus will lead to further division for people of strong conservative faith and the progressives if he would become president.

Perhaps it's because of his world view that Homosexuality is innate (people were born that way) when asked (see Keyes-Obama debate link above), and is not a choice. Where did he learn this? This is a worldly beliefe that has no foundation in a Biblical worldview unless you are engaged in putting your own bias into the Bible or using a very liberal hermeneutic.

Do you see how he is inconsistent? Conservatives Christians exercise their faith in the public sphere with their voices and votes by being for traditional marriage and against special civil rights for something they believe the Bible speaks on as morally wrong, and more importantly are against abortion as a woman's choice (and also harvesting and destroying embryos). They have a high view of human life that comes from faith, with abortion being a subtle but real form of murder, as they believe that human life begins at conception. Barack can use his faith for social change on other issues but didn't respect others when they use there's. I hope he's dynamic enough to change on these things but I haven't found any evidence of that yet. I have real problems supporting Barack Obama based on these problems. I'm afraid that we may have well meaning people that vote based on his charisma vs. the substance of his positions, I hope you don't after learning more about him.

Huckabee Wins IA

2008-01-03T20:02:00.000-08:00

It's estimated that Huckabee has won according to Fox News and CNN. He has a 9% edge over Romney with 93% of the precincts reporting. I did ended up caucusing for him but had to really think about it before I wrote the name on the piece of paper. My heart was with my word (online pledge made for Keyes) and wanted Keyes to win but I remembered why I was there that night, to defeat Romney and have Huckabee win (and Keyes had his other chances in the past). My particular precinct (18) had more votes for Romney by about 5 (which was disappointing) but perhaps this was because there was a much better speech for Romney by someone that was involved in the actual organization of the event. Huckabee didn't have anyone to speak for him at first but had a couple people speak up for him at the last minute. It was strange that Alan Keye's was not mentioned as a candidate so I'm not sure my vote would have even counted if I did vote for him, however, there was someone that was allowed to speak for him at the end (as all the other Republican candidates had people speak or could speak on their behalf).

Closing thoughts:

I think Huckabee could make a good president in the mold of Reagan in that he is an attractive and potentially unifying personality. I think he has significant moral fiber and I approve him so much more than any of the Democrat candidates. Just go to his Web and see his stand on the issues.

Obama won on the other side, so what does Huckabee offer over Obama? He's not from the GOP? He's more attractive to young people? The message of change resonates? Who is more for the the little guy? Huckabee said he wants change but change for the better. I agree that Huckebee offers a better plan. I also think Huckabee understands the little guy more so than many Repulican candidates which helps him against the Democrats that claim to be for them.

An hour away from the Iowa Caucuses

2008-01-03T15:44:00.000-08:00

It's about an hour away from the Iowa Caucuses. I have my voter registration (registered as a Republican) with new IA driver's license. I am anxious and feeling the weight of the moment. It's tough to know what to do as I have recently pledged to endorse Alan Keyes, I have decided I don't want to see Mitt Romney win Iowa, and I have been very interested in Mike Huckabee. Also I consider myself a conservative and so don't want to ignore Hunter and Thompson as well, however, these fellas aren't as inspiring as leaders (so have no shot to win IMO).

Currently I'm leaning on voting against Mitt Romney and for Mike Huckabee because:
1. Mitt Romney has been involved with lying. I have heard this related to the beliefs of Mormonism. Saying that Mormons believe that Jesus will return in Israel when they really believe he will return in Missouri (Way of the Master Radio interviews an ex-Mormon about this). Implying that Mormonism believes in the same things that Christians do in regards to Jesus and salvation, which they do not. They believe that it's faith + obeying the commandments (works) that save a person. Also they do believe that Jesus is not God in the same way as Christians do (and yes, I believe that do believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers). Click here to learn more (see the video): Mormonism - Glenn Beck to what Mormon's believe

2. Mitt Romney has been negative campaigning in desperation against Mike Huckabee after he lost his lead in the poll to him. This negative campaigning has involved distortion of the statements and positions of Mike Huckabee. I agree with Michael Medved on these points and also believe what Mike Huckabee has said.

3. I trust Mike Huckabee even though he has done things that raise questions, I accept his response to them.

4. So what about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter being more than harsh on Huckabee (not to mention Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Hewitt)? I think they want Romney or Thompson, or even Giuliani and Huckabee scares them. They don't think he's conservative enough, fear him being too compassionate perhaps, don't think he can win against Hillary, or something. I personally respect these people a lot but do not see eye-to-eye because my allegiance is not so much with the conservative movement as with the social conservative movement based on Christian values. So they hold him up to a hirer standard that the others, which is not fair and right. They can ensure a democratic win if they don't give up on this negative campaign of distortion against one of the front runners in the race.

5. Why not vote for Alan Keyes? He has let us all down by coming in late to the game and his support is grassroots, apparently it's not really getting into the media well enough. Ron Paul ran a much better grassroots campaign, for example. I'm disappointed that his campaign is so weak, however, I'm glad he is trying and I support most of his stands. He is best on social issues, much stronger, perhaps too strong, as he's a polarizer.

Iowa Caucass in 2 days

2008-01-01T12:31:00.000-08:00

Now that we are 2 days from the Iowa Caucus I am ready to share some more of my thoughts on who to support or not to support. While I haven't been keeping up as well as I could have, I have been able to investigate some of the choices.

Mitt Romney, is one who I do not support in the primary. He is misrepresenting his faith (i.e. LYING) publicly claiming that Jesus will return to Israel when he knows that the Mormon church teaches that he'll return in Missouri. Also he is trying to persuade people to believe Mormonism is another conservative domination of Christianity which it is not. They believe that it's faith + works that get you to heaven and yes, they do believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers (so thy don't believe in the divinity of Jesus like Christians). Mitt's has the uncanny ability to turn questions taken out of context, from his rival, into slams of bigotry. He is running a negative campaign with his millions against Huckabee and McCain, and I hope he looses in IA and maybe to McCain in NH because of it.

Mike Huckabee, is showing that he has main stream media appeal and some repectable polling numbers, however, the conservative talk shows and commentators do not have much good to say about him. I don't think most are being fair to him and believing some misrepresentations even, but he does make you wonder if he can muster enough support from the Republican base to win. I don't think he can, but he has elevated the dialog to moral issues again, and for that I'm grateful. Also I have seen him do compromising or stupid things, misrepresenting his faith by claiming that there is more than one way to salvation than through Jesus. To Mike Huckabee's defense, he is better than the others in my opinion. He has the ability to unify the country through his beliefs and ways, has the most executive experience of any of the candidates in either party, and is a compassionate conservative. If it wasn't for another candidate, I might have voted for him.

I think that Alan Keye's is the best on the issues, however, he came so late into the game, and isn't really going to be expected to win, at least by watching the polls and news. He does seem to have the best foreign policy experience of any candidate. Alan has worked for the State department. Even Mitt Romney admitted that someone from the state department might be the best for the job before he went to discounting that idea because he doesn't have that experience. Alan has a great ad that out shows why he is the best of the rest, and I agree that he is better than any of the others on abolishing abortion, judicial tyranny, border security, international policy, and Reagan conservative ideals.

Doubts About My Endorsement of Alan Keyes

2007-12-20T17:11:00.000-08:00

I do have reservations about grassroots petitioning for Alan Keye's and I may even change my voting position. This based on some more thought about endorsing Alan Keyes. Some of the things he has said that were not true but he claimed they were. That's the way it is sometimes with people but it shouldn't be so. People with passion, feel the right way but are not right (and can be proven wrong). He needs to check his speech and facts. Some reasons why I have doubts:

1. In October, on Way of the Master radio, he said that Michael Medved was pro-choice and supports abortion rights (was pretty sure but not 100%), actually Medved said he doesn't support abortion (and isn't pro-choice). "Abortion's shades of gray"

2. He said on Hannity and Colmes that Mike Huckabee is good on social issues but practically a liberal on everything else. I know Huckabee is a conservative on other issues as I used to be a supporter of his more so... but maybe his record raises questions and Huckabee's justification don't satisfy him, but it's wrong to paint him as a liberal like that. You compare his policies on guns, the borders, Iraq war, and so on, Keyes is wrong, Huckabee is conservatively positioned. Huckabee may be more able to communicate to liberals better than most and may be more embraced by liberals because he is willing to look at compassionate solutions that may violate the conservative hard line (raising taxes in his state and giving benefits for some illegal immigrant children). He may be too weak as a conservative in some ways based on his long executive record perhaps but is he practically a liberal? I don't know, unless you take a snap shot of him that is not fair, in my opinion (see issues on mikehuckabee.com).

3. On Hannity and Colmes he said he is matching Ron Paul in the polls. I heard that Paul was 5% and Keye's was 3% recently. Actually I confirmed that in one poll he does match Paul but the poll data same is small and the margin of error eats into this number probably. On other polls Paul has more but those don't include Keyes in them. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

4. Said in the debate against Obama about 3 years ago for the IL US Senate race, I thought he said that the black population was actually decreasing because of abortion. I looked it up and this wasn't true but maybe I heard him wrong. Compared to other races, they are not keeping pace, because of high abortion rates. Their birth rates are lower than whites and hispanics, so it's true that they will have less influence in the future because of abortion. This is a huge African American issue, which I agree with Alan about. Don't have a link to this yet.

A links to abortion statistics by race: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10332
Quotes from a web site about the position in the debate: "Keyes was also adamant in his characterization of abortion as a "genocide" of black Americans, citing statistics alluding to a decline in the black population of the United States across generations as a result of abortion." from a unflatering Web site

5. Is a Roman Catholic but appeals to evangelical ideals. This is difficult for many evangelicals to accept perhaps as there are difference in the understanding of Salvation.

6. Also he is not popular in even conservative circles because of his approach and the focus he has. However he is respected by some important people (Levin and Hannity). For example, his behaviour in the last debate, he spoke our of turn and spoke out of anger and he claimed there was a conspiracy against him or the issues. I don't disagree with these claims and he got my attention but it has turned off others who otherwise would agree with him perhaps. Perhaps that's okay given his lack of ability to be on TV and has no funding for commercials. His unbridled passion, intellectual arguments, and many words may He also comes across as being extremely boastful or proud but I know his speech is backed by conviction, good understanding, and passion.

7. He can't possibly win any states and he's got in so late in the game, why waste a vote. Alternatively, I could start a prayer group to pray for revival and do other things like aggressive and effective forms of evangelism.

OK, so Alan isn't perfect but perhaps is the best by far. As Alan put it, if you vote for a winner you may be deceived by Satan to compromise for the sake of position or power. Voting on conscience is key (no pun intended).

I Endorsed Alan Keyes for the Republican Nomination

2007-12-19T01:51:00.001-08:00

I have just signed the pledge to support Alan Keyes for president: "THEREFORE, I hereby announce my support for the cause of America's revival, and for ALAN KEYES as the PRESIDENT whose leadership will promote that cause."

I have known about Alan Keyes for years. Saw him speak in Washington DC on the mall for the May Day for Marriage rally about 3 years ago. Voted for him against Barrack Obama for the Senate Race about 3 years ago as well. Why would I do this, considering he is not a front runner, an obscure candidate to most, and even sounded like a mad man in the last debate?

1. As I shared on the AlanKeyes.com: "Alan is solidly right on with the issues. I was impressed by Alan Keyes on Hannity & Colmes tonight, learned about his stances on issues on Alankeyes.com and reviewed his recent Des Moines debate statements on You Tube. I am convinced that he has the knowledge, wisdom, passion, and faith to lead the country to renewal and revival."

2. Alan is better for the country than the others, as I see it, because he is more likely to lead us towards national revival and restoration, from a God fearing, moral perspective (that would have been respected in the history of this great nation). Previously I supported Mike Huckabee, even gave to his campaign. I believed that he was a decent choice, perhaps the best, among the remaining others but I seen him as weak and bending on some key things (worth of a blog entry itself, but on his few weaknesses I see in his character and policy). So I believe he may not be the right man for the race for the Republican nomination (I am in Iowa BTW). For Mike's sake, I am glad he's great he is surging in the polls and getting recognition and I do pray for the guy as a Christian brother.

3. Now I know that a vote for Alan Keys is like a vote for Mitt Romney, which is not ideal because I don't fully trust the guy based on what I've seen so far, but it he's at least better than Guiliani or McCain, in my mind, and hope in reality. Going with my conscious has a price to pay, but that price I'm willing to pay. BTW: Romney has really done poorly in my mind when he has been attacking Huckabee, because I don't think it's unnecessary, fair or wise to put down such an experienced, moral/good-guy, and respected former governor.

To learn more about Alan Keyes:

Alan Keyes Web site
Alan Keyes in the last Debate in Des Moines.
Debate against Barrack Obama on You Tube
Alan Keyes on Wikipedia (generally don't take a face value for controversial people and issues, but seemed like it was factual for him)

Our Civilization is at the Brink of Grave Peril

2007-06-29T18:57:00.000-07:00

First of all, the threat of the eternal judgment of God for out wickedness and sin should be first of our concerns, for each of us as individuals and as nations. We all need to come to God through Jesus Christ for the forgiveness our our sins. If we don't, God will judge us and we will be eternally separate from God to an eternal in hell, because he is just and holy. Yet in his love and mercy, he provided a way out, that is through faith in Jesus. I urge you to get right with God, in the name of Christ. Here is a link for more help:
http://www.billygraham.org/SH_StepsToPeace.asp

My other thought for this blog entry: I wanted to comment on a grave and significant threat to our livelihood and the future generations' livelihood. Ultimately this threat could cripple and threaten the existence of our civilization as we know it. Islamic Jihadism. Former Sen. of Pennsylvania , Rick Sentorum, was interviewed by the Pittsburg Tribune-Review about this threat and what we can do about it now, to save many lives.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/today/s_484790.html

Some highlights:

"This is a threat that is based on what I would argue is a corruption of a religion, for religious purposes and worldly purposes. ... In modern times we have never faced this kind of threat."
"But I am not a Paul Revere. I am not just running around screaming, "The Islamafacists are coming!" What I am trying to do is put forth ideas and policy solutions on how we can stop this before it becomes an even more grave threat. ... Acting now could potentially save thousands of lives later."
"... If we don't have this debate and we simply ignore the religious implications of this war, then we are destined to lose this war. And not just lose it from the standpoint of confronting it in the Middle East, but we are destined to lose it in our own public discourse and all around the world, particularly in Europe right now."
"And the intangible sacrifice is not to be terrorized. It is not to allow the terrorist tactic to work. We are failing at that right now."
Our energy situation is making things worse: "These folks use oil as a weapon. Chavez, Ahmadinejad -- both have been very clear that oil is a weapon. And the fact is that we are sending over 60 percent of our money out to foreign nations, many of whom -- although not most -- are hostile to the United States."
Is congress helping to make us more energy independent? "mentioned during the campaign, just in Western Pennsylvania alone we drilled over 3,500 gas and oil wells last year. Thirty-five hundred! We go through floor debates to stop us from drilling less than 1,000 wells in all of Alaska for the next 25 years."
Can we count on the media in this war? Look at Iraq: "I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq)."

An Liberal who seems to be a Secular Athesis seems to get this threat right and cricizes other Liberals (Sam Harris talking to Tucker Carlson): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBOGQckaF0U

Liberals instinctively make excuses for Muslim extremists
Liberals must realize there are 10's of millions of Muslim extremists that are scarier than Dick Chaney
While he does argue against dogmatism, which I don't support fully, he said liberals have dogma, if the poor people of the world were treated well and given enough economic opportunity they would be garenteed to be reasonable and tolerant. Clearly not true with Islam. Islam is kind of death cult.
Studies say that support for suicide bombing goes up when you correct for literacy, and economic opportunity.
We are not at war with all Muslims but we are at war with the idea that cartoonist should be beheaded for drawing Mohamed, women should be stoned for adultry, and converting away from the faith is a capital offense.
Liberals on the side of those that don't support free speech (violence against the Pope for example and defending the violence against the cartoonists)
"Liberals almost by definition do not know what it's like to really believe in God. They don't know what it's like to be sure that the book they keep by there bedside is the literal word of the creator of the universe and that death is mearly a passage to an eternity of happiness.... so they find it difficult to believe that anyone believes this stuff and so are motivated by the content of there religious beliefs. ". They are thinking it's just propaganda that no really why he blow himself up. While putting down our own religious, calling them loonitics, he says that they are in a better position to understand the people actually believe in this.
Tucker said "The first people to be rounded up in this country would be the gay, the secular... almost like masochism or self hatred... "this idea that Western power is at it's roots is malevolent, this idea isn't serving us"
While I don't agree with where Sam Harris may be taking the discussion to getting rid of religious dogma into a more secular society. I do agree that it's a war of ideas.
Terrifying # of Muslims are sympathetic to acts of terrorism, not 1% or 0.5%. 1% is 14 million people but he's sure it's an order of magnitude or more larger
Human beings first not Christians against Muslim against Jews... he argues... I think there is something to that, we are in a global community

Polemic to my Global Warming Thoughts

2007-04-30T00:35:00.000-07:00

Recently I received a polemic email in response to a friendly notification that there is another side to the Global Warming debate. My email was triggered by the Glenn Beck special this week on Wed. I have the points listed because I believe they are worth sharing. Sometime questioning, debate, and argumentation or confrontation leads to a clarification of misunderstandings and can help get to the real truth, which is always good. Fundamentally, I hope to at least encourage critical thought on the matter in a quest for the truth and to stifle unneeded over-reaction in which I see as an open scientific debate.

My source(s) were questioned because I listed one with a link to You Tube, however, I think this source is valid and compelling (The Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin of Channel 4 BBC but made from an independent house, Wagtv). Recommendation came from CBN previously and it was mentioned on Glenn Beck's radio show. I have other sources on my spaces live blog from a Canadian PHD Climatologist and a Climate Change organization, and a Christian physicist and a rational faith based minstry called Reasons to Believe. See my other blog postings.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin was presented as a polemic in the debate vs. the other side according to Wikipedia and Channel 4 according to Carl Wunsch of MIT in the film. This makes sense to me from observing it but that doesn't mean it's not have validity but it perhaps presents it in a way that will polarize and bother some. I recently heard the director refute criticism of this. The points of criticism: 1. he used an older IPCC CO2 chart and 2. Carl Wunsch was saying he was misrepresented in it. Carl Wunsch has a very interesting response about the program (click here). Maybe a misunderstanding, possibly the film went too far, or Carl buckling under professional pressure put on him (or a combination).
Carl Wunsch said that we shouldn't go to either extreme necessarily and backs up that a debate should be ongoing. He said about Al Gore: "I am often asked about Al Gore and his film. I don't know Gore, but he strikes me as a very intelligent man who is seriously concerned about what global change will mean for the world. He is a lawyer/politician, not a scientist, who has clearly worked hard to master a very complicated subject and to convey his worries to the public. Some of the details in the film make me cringe, but I think the overall thrust is appropriate. To the extent that he has gotten some things wrong, I mainly fault his scientific advisers, who should know better, but not Al Gore. "
"Thousands of Scientists world-wide have recognized that the cause of Global warming is greenhouse gases." said my friend. I don't deny that many scientists are in agreement of the theory of man made global warming but I know of many scientists that would say otherwise too. Let the debate ensue without what I see from one side trying to close it, I say.
"There is also a movie called the Inconvenient truth thats theme is global warming; I have not seen it yet" said my friend. I said: " I have seen it and it was referenced in my message. Al Gore's movie I found one sided and condescending to any skeptics. It's good to have an alternate view in a debate, that's why I referenced it and the Glenn Beck TV special next Wed. I encourage you to see the special and the Channel 4 special I referenced and watch Al Gore's video if you want to do more research on this."
"Al Gore is trying to draw attention to the issue because it is important. Don't necessarily knock him cause he is a Democrat. : )" was said, my reply: "Believe me, this is not about Al Gore, the Democrat, it's about the truth, and the debate, he's using science I refute and disagree with the forceful political and social pressure he is applying. He may have good intentions, I can't know his heart on this, but I believe he's wrong in his ways and scientific conclusions. He's preaching this like it's a moral obligation and there is no room for debate. In fact he personally won't debate it I understand. I believe that he is immoral in this because because there is a strong alternate view that I believe is more credible and it's not right to the truth and to science to politicize it too soon."
"What do you mean by "natural explanations"?" was said, my reply: "Natural variations in climate that happen over the Earth life. The sun affects the earth temperature more than anything else: When the sun is hotter the Earth is hotter for example. The Channel 4 video talks about this. "
"What do you mean by having a Biblical World-view? I believe God wants us to protect our environment and that would be to try to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.... no matter what the cause!!!!" was said, my reply: "I also believe that a Biblical world view includes environmental protection (as we need to be good stewards of it) but this issue I don't feel is yet an environmental issue it's being made out to be by one side. Greenhouse gases are good and important part of our environment. The complexity of this isn't fully understood (especially the man made component of this). Note: Water vapor is the largest and CO2 is created by every living thing, mostly by the oceans (and including volcanoes). The man made component understand is very small part of a small part of our green house gases. I'm glad someones looking at this but I don't think we have the understanding to implicate man and enact draconian regulation. If it's natural we can't do anything to change things. Let's seek the truth... that's what I'm referring to with the Biblical view. The worldwide, social, political and economic consequences of acting out of order could be very damaging to people."
"God wants us to be good stewards of what he has given us. There is also tons of anecdotal evidence (from people) who are reporting that temperatures are going up!" was said, my reply: "not only do I agree in being good stewards, I believe in climate change.... as one who knows more than the average about science and loves the truth and I speak to you. I'm still learning more so I can update you and everyone else as I learn more..."

I admit that I may be biased on the side that says man doesn't factor into the Global Warming cause because of the economics and social implication of draconian political action (as I think that all of us should be). Economically I want to be strong and my country strong, and I want to see others coming up in the world economically. If we are wrong we could be hurting us all. Sen. Inhofe was a man-made global warming proponent until he looked at the economics of it. Then he discovered that the science backed up the other side well. Now he's coming at it from the other side which I appreciate very much. My other blog entry address this more. To be presented with a campaign based on false science is wrong but that's what I think we may see soon as Al Gore said it was coming. The truth should be all of our goals and when it's not conclusive we should be open to debate.

Global Warming - I'm Deeply Moved

2007-04-06T23:15:00.000-07:00

I'm finally posted again on this issue after learning more. It's getting under my skin and angering me. We have the Supreme Court ruling 5 to 4 that CO2 is a gas to be regulated by the government, setting up some things I believe is wrong. I've learned a lot recently about this from discussion, the media (and my sources are quite varied). I have learned a lot from my favorite conservative sources but I've seen some of the liberals speak on this as well. I saw Al Gore on CSPAN in a congressional environmental committee very recently and have been continuing to do research since. I've heard arguments against Man made Global warming from Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma. Recently I watched a video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (Click here for the: You Tube link to abridged video) as recommended by the Christian Broadcasting Network today (700 Club). It's a British documentary with good sources, with science, history, and explanations.

While I have a lot of information to share that isn't going to be published, I felt it was time to update the blog. Here's some of what I know for certain:

1. The Earth Climate is changing and we in are warming cycle since the 70's according to scientific consensus. I have heard that speaking heads on shows we haven't had any warming for 10 years and hear it said that it's expected we'll have global cooling in 5 years.

2. Al Gore declared the debate to be over he also said "Our world faces a true planetary emergency"and "The planet has a fever" and talks about the planet like it's our child. He claims that the the leading scientist of Popular Science backs this up. His belief that our behavior is the problem, man-made CO2 from the industrialized nations. He has presented extraordinary doomsday claims about this with his movie, no doubt will motivate people by fear. For example we have 10 years before we are doomed. 20 foot rising sea levels?! I'm sorry the computer simulations are very disputed. I've heard one talking head said that it's only 2 feet (as one who agree with man made CO2 global warming obviously).

3. Al Gore lacks the credibility to ask people to make a change in there lifestyles as he is a hypocrite, as I have heard on Conservative talk radio and on Hannity and Colmnes and CSPAN. Sean Hannity and others have said he uses 20 times the CO2 as the average American. He flies around the country frequently in private jets, has a mansion in TN and 4 large homes total. On his grounds was a Zinc mine that he had made money on which now is a superfund site with mercury and cadmium contamination. Do a search on WSJ Gore Zinc or click on this

3.5. Sen. Barbra Boxer is charge of the committee that Sen. Inhofe was leading (Environment and Public Works Committee) and she said that the nay sayers are like the those that said the Earth is flat and said she's not going to debate anymore as she knows it happening. Then claimed that the science is behind it says, 11 national academy of scientists, and scientists at USA today, and wants to move on to legislative action, no doubt what Gore suggests.

4. Gore suggests eliminating CO2 production, taxing for CO2 usage, and global initiatives. The UN Kyoto Accord comes to mind which is global socialism (USA would loose) which I'm against.

5. The effect of following through with the legislation will be a tax on the average American, increase in energy costs, taxation and increased cost good and services, Inhofe said $2750 / average family of 4. 10 times the biggest American tax increase. The poor will be most affected obviously. Many can profit from this, like Al Gore who has a company he pays to maintain a "carbon neutral lifestyle". The cost of lost jobs and national (and worldwide) economic recession related to these changes could be much worse than anything I've mentioned.

6. We would keep developing nations without cost effective electricity, keeping them from increasing there lifespans and becoming healthier (smoke from heating/cooking by burning dung or wood is much worse than the effect of electricity for there health).

7. I don't agree about the scientific consensus on CO2 as man made because of all the trusted people speaking against it, most importantly the scientists, quoted research, polls. I don't trust the mainstream media, however, I'm open to truth. I don't see the consensus. Sources to come in the future perhaps.

8. It makes complete sense, I agree that the sun is the main contributor to global warming (see the video). One day the planet will be scorched according to Revelations as one of the "Left Behind" authors mentioned recently on Glenn Beck. This is perhaps from solar flares in the tribulation. There is nothing we can do about that with regulation other than perhaps laws protecting morality and actions against the anti-Christ to to delay this event perhaps.

9. What I'm saying that the media, politicians, businesses, lobbyists, some scientists, are involved in a conspiracy of fear based on junk science. Some have to know it but I think most people believe in it like a religion. Like Barbra Boxer "she knows it". People are labeled heretics in the scientific community if they come out against the man-made CO2 idea. Politicians can get votes and funds and get there way using this cause (both parties), businesses can make money for their shareholders (media, alt. energy companies, or companies that want to gain by legislative), all can gain by latching on to the bandwagon. Also worldwide the US can be taxed and share the wealth via a treaty like the Kyoto Accord. There is a lot of momentum and money to be made or lost. The video does a great job of explaining how scientists can get funding if they mention Global Warming and are rewarded for being alarmist.

10. The UN, who formed the IPCC, has been pushing this and they came out with a political policy report before the scientific reports but I don't trust them to come up with anything that is out of line with the assumption of man-made global warming. I've heard that those out of line with that assumption are asked to leave the organization. One of the scientists on the IPCC was in the video. Sounds like someone is pulling the cart before the horse without care for the truth.

To learn more about the dangers of mixing politics with science check out this: Michael Creighton from his book “State of Fear” shows how bad science was politicised and it lead to millions of deaths. http://crichton-official.com/fear/ Eugenics is the science of killing people based on protecting the gene pool, based on evolution and thus immoral discrimination. It was practiced in Germany and help lead to the death camps. “Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.”

The science is the key, another blog is needed for that. Let the truth be known before we do anything drastic but I fear it's going to be getting more uncomfortable to be living in these times. I am all for the scientific process as an honest Engineer and science minded individual.

Saddam was working with Al Qaeda

2007-02-23T00:58:00.000-08:00

I've heard we went to war for 2 reasons, WMD in Iraq and the Saddam and Al Qaeda connection. While it's been communicated there was no 911 tactical planning connection between Al Qaeda, there are numerous cases of the late Saddam's Iraq regime working with Al Qaeda. This is probably misunderstood, miscommunicated, and/or misconstrued by many and the media. I believe that Stephen Hayes, has given a good case for the connection that hasn't been effectively communicated to the public.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/040623a.aspx

Even Al Gore said that there was no connection, said that it was a lie, but never backed up his statement. In the past Gore had used the Al Qaeda connection to attack the terrorists camps in Sudan. Hillary, Lieberman, Bye, George Tenent, backed up the connection in the past. New prime minister and new deputy minister disagree with Gore.

Listen to Stephen F. Hayes talking about the connections author "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America": http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev061004a.cfm

The book: http://www.parable.com/cbn/item.asp?sku=0060746734

Iraq WMD Moved by Russia!?

2007-02-23T00:33:00.000-08:00

I have heard it said that there was no doubt Iraq had WMD from worldwide sources (before the war). Congress agreed as well as Great Britain, Germany, and France (FYI: Hillary Clinton even agreed with this when she voted to fund the war with John Kerry and the congress). So how could the Iraqi's get rid of it all then? Russia was the major WMD supplier to Iraq according to this article and they helped Iraq get rid of them. Click this link from Newsmax dated Feb. 19th 2006. This is supposedly from a high ranking pentagon source.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org)."

Why wouldn't the Bush Administration tell the world about this vs. take the heat for not finding significant WMD as they have had since the start of the war? Apparently the stakes are higher than we realize. Goes back to Iran, to stop a nuclear Iran we need Russia and China on our side. By the way Russia, China and France were the suppliers of WMD according to this article.

By the way: I know a friend of mine that has said that the US has provided WMD in the past. This to fight Iran during the previous year during the Iran-Iraq war. I don't need to get into this here but by all accounts Iraq should have disarmed according to UN and worldwide mandate.

While this information is based largely on a single official reported from a single source, the case for it may not be able to convict on, however it may be true, and it enlightening I believe.

Update: The source seems to be isolated and not supported. According to this artical he's been released from his job: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041229-113041-1647r.htm. Wikipedidia has other claims about him, however, I don't know what's true.

"(AP) U.S. Says Iran Leadership Arming Iraqis"

2007-02-12T21:25:00.000-08:00

The case for war is moving forward and this is a good thing as Iran is a terrorist supporting nation led by a regime that denies the holocaust and seems bent on nuclear weapons. They are supplying bombs to attack our troops, and directly responsible for more than 170 of their deaths. "The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces."... "Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran."

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-us-says-iran-leadership-arming-iraqis/77036.htm

The article goes on: "

The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.

Senior U.S. officials in Washington _ cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion _ had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation."

President Bush still says he is not planning to attack Iran. He has the authority to do this but congress will make it difficult unless a good case is compiled and even then it will be difficult. Pre-emption may not be popular but it must be done if we are going to stop the terrorists after they strike us again on the US soil. The nations that support terrorists must be coerced to participate however the battle is again more than nations, the ideological war is going to be a long war.

Talks with the President of Iran seem to be fruitless and a stall tactic. Once they get Nuclear weapons we we will have more problems. Don't you think they will make it possible to deliver nuclear weapons to be delivered by terrorists!?

Please support our president and our military in our war on terror.

Iraq War and WMD in Iraq

2007-01-27T12:43:00.000-08:00

This is from an email I put together for a friend in Sept. of '06. The issues seems to be coming back as I talked about this in a conversation at lunch.

---

Did a little research for you and my benefit to know my sources and learn more:

I didn't realize how much Saddam and Iraq were a threat.... They had quite a WMD program, chemical and biological, and had pursued nuclear (see http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html). They had missiles and developed a super gun that could shoot 600 miles (that's Israel right?)
Ties to terrorists... I found something: they had there Jihadist Terror Training Camps prior to 2002 training 2000 or so (probably the current insurgents) the article claims: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Saddam was a major supporter of Terrorism: http://www.husseinandterror.com/ and a threat to us, Israel, and the West according to this...
I found the interview with Gen. Tommy Franks that his ground forces found the precursors elements of WMD that could be assembled in days, weeks, and maybe a few months: http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040812a.aspx
We know that Saddam had extensive WMD and had made efforts to develop WMD. The question is did he destroy them and stop production and R&D like he was supposed to according to UN mandates. What I knew was that there was evidence of significant unaccounted WMD before the war (and that is why I supported the war with Iraq before we went to war).
"No Weapon of Mass Destruction" found simply is not true
Turns out Iraq didn't destroy them all:
- Recently from declassified documents this year (June 22, 2006 article): ~500 munitions found with degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent (plus more likely exist)
- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
- There was infrastructure to conduct R & D and the ability to ramp up production mentioned
- Note: even though these are likely weapons from before 1991 it does prove WMD did exist
We should know that Saddam would have been able to restart production of chemical weapons easily so he was a threat if he didn't have active production currently (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw-isg.htm)
A theory that I believe is possible as well: Weapons moved out of Iraq before the War (off the official Iraqi records so we can't prove it). Syria is the probable local for this. I saw an article says that sources within Syria claim that it was moved to locations controlled by Hezbollah such as the Becka Valley.

Even though the scale of WMD wasn't what we expected to find doesn't mean that they didn't exist or they weren't covertly moved. Saddam's regime was a threat to us because of his WMD and terrorist ties and potential ties. I agree it's better he's out, however I do agree that Islamic Fascism replacing him is not what we want. Iran now seems to be more frightening but the world is a safer place without Saddam's regime.

On another note the Bush administration may have gone too far with the initial evidence of WMD to make the case for a Regime change in Iraq according to some of the reading I found. Certainly there can be a case and there should be accountability. Perhaps the Intelligence community isn't to blame fully for the War in Iraq but the administration knew more then they wanted to share. In any case the regime change was done and I believe not done for purposes other than to create a free Democratic Iraq, remove a threat to the US and the region, and pre-empt any future threat of WMD to the US. No doubt Saddam would pursue the WMD and terrorism ties given the blind eye treatment by the West.

There could be other unspoken secondary motives for the administration... pinching Iran from the East (Iraq) and the West (Afghanistan). It does set us up for a good ground invasion given Iran is a stalling to become a nuclear threat and they are awful terrorism sponsors (Hezbollah).

David

Warning Americans: Democratic Presidential Candidates

2007-01-23T00:56:00.000-08:00

Mark Levin is the great one when it comes to debunking the candidates! He is so sharp and did a wonderful job of exposing a bunch of the candidates and focused on Hillary Clinton yesterday. Check this ~15 minute steam out to learn what is the word.

Some of the gist:
Lots of firsts... first woman to run that hasn't wore a skirt...
Is she qualified? She is a complete phony says Levin.... a phony smile, a phony message, a phony marriage, a phony resume, he can't think of a single reason why a country like ours should have her as our president ... she ran in a blue state, New York not in Arkansas and not in Illinois. She has been running for president for 6 years... one of the greatest lawyers ever!?!... she didn't accomplish anything... she voted for the war and now claims that it was a mistake... she's into surrender.... undermining the war effort... for socialized medicine... bad idea... her policies would be harmful to all Americans.... liberalism kills opportunity by stealing your income and giving it to government chosen programs... like government funded partial birth abortions. Capitalism is not what she wants.... left wind ideologue... pursue there agenda in the name of the people when in fact they use the people... they abuse the people! She despises the military if you look at her husbands treatment of the military... For the children!?

Rush yesterday seemed to hit a nail on the head when he call Obama the God for the Godless. Wow, that's a great way to describe who is in the public eye. These are my thoughts: Watch out for Obama, he's a potential idol for the masses if he isn't already. You know what a man can become if he has power and is truly an idol to the masses. Not sure what this guy stands for or what he believes. Seems like he's all things to all people except he's a liberal I understand. Watch and pray.