Those hypocrites!

In the gay rights debate, only one side is truly intolerant.

 

The Brave Catherine Vogt

Photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo, The Chicago Tribune

From the Chicago Tribune, "Tolerance Fails T-Shirt Test" by John Kass, as pointed out by Michelle Malkin.

Intelligence Quotient

"I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused." - Sen. Barack Obama responding to Billary Clinton's comments, March 2008

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama starts to change his anti-war tone in the next few months. After meeting with the CIA, the military, the DOD, and Bush, I can only imagine him getting hit with what's truly happening in the Middle East. At least he'll learn what the President knows and why Bush had to do what he had to do. During his term as Senator and during his campaign, Obama visited many countries, including those in the Middle East, but I would love to see the look on his face once he learns what's going on beneath the surface.

Electoral Craziness

My wife and I were talking about how the Electoral College worked. I needed to refresh my memory, since both of us were talking about something we haven't studied since 2000 and I was pretty sure we were both wrong on certain things.

So, here's a brief explanation:



No, seriously:

Too bad!

Darn, too bad McCain didn't win the election because it would've helped to weed out those who are ungrateful to be an American. If only the "exodus" idea in this article were true, it would've helped to solidify the number of real Americans in this country, and those who think they're too educated and progressive can go to their desired refuge (or cage). I prefer my freedoms, thank you very much.

Just because Obama won doesn't mean I should leave the US. I believe this is the most unique nation on Earth and I'm not about to hand it over to leaders who like to govern like the rest of the world's leaders. We can still change this country for the better after his term ends. One of my co-workers said, "It can't get any worse than what it is now." I beg to differ - this country has the potential to be brought to its knees with someone like Obama at the helm. The beauty of America is in its core ideals of liberty based on Judeo-Christian principles. If we keep to this core, America can get back to its feet after 2012. Most likely it will take a little more than four years to undo his damage, but there will come a day when government's tentacles will retract and we can get back to living like free Americans again.

I hope the voluntary weeding will begin by then as well.

I Submit

Oh well...

Within the next four years, many people will develop a nasty case of buyer's remorse. Obama's campaign had quite a successful marketing strategy. Riding on a Bush-bashing media wave, the tone was set for their winning sales approach. They emphasized the imagined deficiency of the customer's life in a Bush administration. Using an already biased media, they capitalized on the "change" they could offer and branded Obama as the agent of change. It didn't matter what that change was, as long as it didn't have anything to do with Bush. No specifics on the promises, just promises, just words said from the podium to fill that imagined need. Also, because our society has been moving towards government dependency and entitlement, any promise Obama made was more palatable to the general population.

Obama's marketing team also took advantage of his packaging, that he would be the first Black President, that he is more intelligent and articulate than Bush, and that he's young. They've also priced him well: tax cuts for the middle and lower class, tax hike for the rich, and relief programs for the poor. As the candidate with the most money spent on a campaign, it's no wonder that he would win.

I'm disappointed in McCain's marketing strategy. Then again, I really can't blame him. There were way too many factors against him. His campaign wasn't smart enough to deal with the media's bias and the culture's already ingrained antipathy towards Bush. Then again, Bush's public relations team did not do a good job at all in defending him well these past eight years. Instead, they allowed the liberal media to walk all over them. Bush took the high road, but at a great price. Most people don't take the time to research politics - they just watch or read what's readily available. Of course, now everyone will have to pay the price and those who elected Obama will realize it sooner or later.

As the new Commander-in-Chief, I have a duty to submit to Obama's authority. I won't agree with him, but he will be my President. I'm hoping that his progressive views would allow him to be more malleable over the course of his term. If so, it is imperative that Christians and conservatives rise up and make a huge effort in letting him know that we've not left the building. We're now more emboldened than ever to bring actual change to our nation, our society, and our culture.

It will only be four years. I can only hope the damage won't be too extensive.

First Responder

My wife's brother was the first to respond to the letter we sent out. His response is the comment in the "Important Election Reminder" entry. This is my response:

Excellent response, Jesse! Thank you for contributing! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to discuss. Know that in my response, I have no animosity towards you or anything against you. This is merely an open discussion where we will allow our views to be known and done with utmost respect for each other. I mean, how often do we talk about more in-depth issues anyway? I love good discussions and I hope you do too. I find them challenging and exciting and will either solidify or change our perspectives.

First, I'd like to say that I too believe that no political candidate is the solution to the ills of society, nor are they supposed to be depended on to provide the means to create a better world. Yes, God is the one who places whoever He wants on the political stage. No matter how much we vote, it's God who has the final say. And, like you said, "as Christians we should be involved in everyday life through conversations that challenge our thinking, through helping those that need help, and through talking to our elected leaders about issues we feel are important." But as Christians, we have a duty to be part of the society we live in, to be salt and light in the world, even in matters of political duty. We're going to have to disagree on this election's level of importance. Yes, the world will go on and things are cyclical, but the decisions that will be made by Obama will have consequences that are unacceptable to me. (Warning: this one's a little long.)

Let's talk specifics: Between 1999 to 2003, Obama voted "present" or "no" for the bans on partial-birth abortions, born-alive protection and related issues, which is nothing more than political strategy. A "no" vote wouldn't be politically expedient, so most of the time he voted "present." The bills banning PBA provided for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother, contrary to Obama's beliefs. PBA actually increases the likelihood for a woman's health to deteriorate. To ban the procedure altogether would be better for the woman and the child. Medically speaking, there is no need for PBA. Women who have had it did not have health- or life-threatening causes, but they elected to have the procedure. Those with non-elective reasons cited depression as their "health-related" cause. The only threat was emotional! They simply didn't want to take on the responsibilities that go with the baby. He may say that PBA is wrong, but it has not and will not ever come out in his policy decisions. The reason why he didn't support the ban was because he believes in a woman's right for reproductive choice. He didn't look into the medical issues involved and so made the decision in ignorance. If he truly knew about the medical issues with the convictions that he had and still decided against banning PBA, then he did it out of political maneuvering and is simply disingenuous. I do give him credit for at least allowing the possibility that abortion laws may change, but he also promised to pass a Freedom of Choice Act, which will only continue to increase the abortion rate in this country. So he's either lying or just saying things for the sake of political expedience.

And of course, abortion is only the symptom, but it is not rooted in poverty or even lack of education - it is rooted in cultural acceptance through effective marketing. Planned Parenthood has been very active with this since the 1940s and others have followed suit under the banner of "women's rights." Margaret Sanger even wrote "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Yeah, you can find that in publicly accessible archives. (Birth-control advocates try to minimize the meaning of what she wrote in that letter, but in context, Sanger was still talking about limiting the population of the poor.) Christians are already caring for those who have to deal with the abortion question. And there are Christians who go through legal means as well, who want to curb or even overturn Roe vs. Wade. A whole lot more is going on than what the media has presented.

"We've had a pro-life president for the last 8 years and the number of abortions has not decreased one bit."

I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Roe vs.Wade was such a powerful decision that no president can decrease the consequences of that ruling. At least G Dubya did his best to restrict abortion, starting with the 2003 Partial-birth abortion ban. He gladly signed it into law, among other things he tried to do concerning abortion. In fact, I'm in the middle of writing a response to the Burnside article you sent. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'm relieved to know you took that piece with a grain of salt because Mr. Miller sounded like he didn't do too much research as reflected in his answers. My article will be posted soon.

Concerning the poor, Jesus said we'll have the poor with us always. In context he spoke of his upcoming crucifixion, but I'm sure he was also talking about one plain truth: there will always be poor people, both spiritually and economically, no matter what time period or culture. And the government is not responsible for them, we are. Jesus exemplified this by helping the poor as an individual without the need for government intervention. And he didn't approach local government to force the rich young ruler to give. Paul even instructed wealthy individuals to give directly to the poor. He didn't say to give to government so they in turn can give to the poor. We already have some government programs to provide for the poor. But no matter how many programs are made to alleviate poverty, they will not get rid of the problem. Individuals and private industry have historically been the most successful at alleviating poverty, not government. It's good that Obama is going to follow through with Bush's faith-based initiative of rewarding those who fight poverty. Government should work with the private sector to deal with poverty and motivate them to do so. But it is not good if Obama thinks his Robin Hood economic policies will improve the situation. The faith-based initiative to fight poverty is already a given for McCain.

Quickly, on taxes: 70% of income tax money already come from those making $150,000 or more, which is only about 10% of the population. And always be wary when politicians promise more of your own money. The government programs he proposes may help the poor, but guess where all that money is coming from? Government programs only increase taxes and it doesn't help everyone in the long run. It's a temporary salve, if it's even needed, and must be replaced by private sector activities or else it increases the power of government.

On war: War is horrible. But, that's the government's job, not ours. They wield the sword and God gave them the power to do so. (There's the issue of the US being a radically different country than any other country in history, but that's another issue.) We can protest the war and I know for darn sure Christians were split in many ways because of it. There wasn't a monolithic stance from the evangelicals, I can assure you of that. I support it because it's a just war and there have been significant developments since its inception. The media made it out to be another Vietnam when it clearly isn't. (That's also another issue.) Annually, nearly 1 million babies in the US are killed in abortion since 1973 compared with about nearly 700,000 killed total from both sides in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars since 2001. Both are horrible, but the rate of the former is absolutely unacceptable. At least in Afghanistan and Iraq, the death toll decreased dramatically in the past two years. I can't say the same about abortion.

"Citizenlink does not have a corner on truth."

I agree, Citizenlink doesn't have a corner on truth, but they do have a lot of facts which reflect truth. And we only provided those resources to make it easier on the email recipient. I use lots of resources from both Christian and secular, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. After doing the research, my vote, even though I'm reluctant, goes to McCain because Obama's history and promises do not reflect my values. McCain isn't much of a choice either because he only recently grew a spine when it was clear he was going to be the Republican Presidential candidate. Before, he wanted to please everyone with the facade of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" which is synonymous with another phrase - "selling out." Between the two, though, I believe McCain will make the decisions with the consequences that I can handle.

Obviously you're voting for Obama, but I'm just asking you to continue to look a little deeper into the issues than what you've read so far, even after Nov. 4.

545

This is a nice quick summary of the true responsibilities of politicians. This is not meant to be a poli-sci research paper, so specifics of how things are done are not mentioned or explained in detail. The article is also old, most likely from the mid to late '80s, but the principles are legitimate and the examples can be replaced with present politicians and issues. In the end, the blame really rests on the voters who didn't do the necessary research into their political representative and who didn't quite get how this country works.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of America's Woes

by Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'Neill (Pelosi) is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon (Iraq), it's because they want them in Lebanon (Iraq).

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

(This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper)

Important Election Reminder

My wife decided to write an election reminder for the people in our lives. I thought it was also a good way to introduce my blog, rather than just doing a general invite like I originally wanted.

Hello all,

Election day is almost here, and we want to take this opportunity to share with you our beliefs regarding this election. As we all know, so many issues of great importance are facing our country right now. For us, the most important issue is preserving life at all stages. Because we believe in this so strongly, we are requesting that you cast your ballot for the candidate that is most closely pro-life, John McCain.

In America, we legally kill about one million babies per year. While we have great compassion for those facing a difficult situation, the one who is innocent should not be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice by losing their life before they were even able to speak. There are so many resources and alternatives available to a woman besides abortion that should be promoted instead. While there are many very important issues at stake, such as taxes, international issues and healthcare, how the next President's policies affect our personal finances, international relations, etc are secondary issues compared with the abortion issue.

The following resources explain in more depth why we have made this choice. We understand that not everyone may agree with us, and we respect everyone's opinion. The only thing we ask is that you take a few minutes to read the articles and watch the videos and inform yourself before voting. Every vote counts, and we are privileged in this country to live in freedom and to have the right to vote.

Thank you and God Bless!


Article: Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008450.cfm

Video: Vote Your Values (4 mins) http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000008556.cfm

Website: General election information and more http://www.citizenlink.org/

If you'd like, please forward these resources to others!

Invitation and Instructions

I planned to send this to a number of people through email, but my wife decided to write an election reminder email and we thought it was best to put a link to my blog from there instead:

Hello there!

You are cordially invited to my blog, the 12th Letter. I thought I'd give a formal invitation to more people on my address list, so if you received a link to my blog already from a previous message, then I thank you for being patient with me.

I'm inviting you because I don't get to talk with many of you and I would like to hear your thoughts on certain issues. Of course, if you would rather not comment publicly, I wouldn't mind getting private comments through email. I discuss many topics in my articles, but the majority of them concern politics, philosophy, religion, science, and martial arts.

I want this blog to have a civil atmosphere, so please respond respectfully to other commentators. You can definitely make your position known, especially since I write about the more incendiary topics. Yes, I have very opinionated articles, but like any editorial or op-ed, it's supposed to stimulate thought and discussion. I'm fully aware that there are some of you I invited who do not have the same belief system I do or you may have the same belief system but have different nuances to it. I'm applying the principle "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" and know that this is all about reasoned discussion among the people in my life, which is something I enjoy and I hope you will too.

If you want to make a comment, click on the title of the blog article. The next page will show the article by itself with a comment box on the bottom.
1) Post your comment in the comment box.
2) Click on the "Select Profile" drop-down arrow, and select "Name/URL," write your name, and click "Continue."
3) Click on "Post Comment" then you'll have to pass a simple anti-spamming check window: Enter the word verification password they provide and click on "Finish."

If your comment is long and you don't want to lose it, my suggestion is to write it on Word or Notepad first then copy and paste into the comment box. The simplest way to post a comment is to email it to me and tell me that you want it posted in response to a particular article.

And if you want to receive updates in email form, just respond with a reply and I'll keep you on the list. Or, if you want to do a feed or a subscription, there are different RSS feeds on the sidebar and Atom is at the very bottom of the blogpage.

Hope to hear from you!

Read my friggin' lips

Since the Presidential race is all about the economy now, might as well make a comparison between the two proposed tax plans. To be fair, I'll provide two links, one from a more conservative site and another from a more liberal site.

Do you prefer an uncontrollable, growth-oriented economy or do you prefer a controlled and secure, slow-moving economy? Do you prefer government's hands off the money (or as little as it should) or do you prefer government to control the money?

Research fast! You only have 4 days left!

A Supersession discussion on CNBC?

Ann Coulter discussed theological issues on TV that isn't easily understood by the masses. I don't want to make an indictment on people's intelligence, but not too many are educated in theology with its different terminology and its definitions. In an interview with Donny Deutsch on CNBC, she did not do well in defending the Biblical position on the Jewish-Christian relationship. She sounded so ill-informed about Christianity and it was clear to me that she was also influenced by more liberal theologians. I'm a fan of Coulter so to hear her fumble like this is disappointing. Here are some parts:

(Emphases by Foxnews.com. Parentheses mine.)

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

(And that is one example of how NOT to invite someone to church!)
...
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

(I admire people who are direct and I'm glad she answered succinctly, but she should have been more specific. She should have said, "No, we don't throw Judaism away, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. And besides, Judaism and Jewishness is cultural and does not have anything to do with how a person becomes a Christian."

...

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

(Ooh, ouch, never say "Jews need to be perfected" in a post-Holocaust world. The exact theological term is "fulfilled" or "completed." And even then, she had to make a huge qualifying explanation of what fulfilled means or else it would also be misunderstood. And she had to say that the NT talks about all mankind, including Jews, needing the perfection of Christ because we can't be perfect on our own. And then she would've had to say that Christ is the perfect one, not us.)
...

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

(Ugh, once again she should have made the distinction between Judaism as being a culture and Christianity as being a decision regardless of culture. No, I'm not a perfected Jew. I have the inheritance of Abraham, the promise of Jesus, given to both the Jews and Gentiles, but the majority of Christians are Gentiles, not Jews. Fulfilled in Christ, yes, but Jewish, no. Jews who believe in Christ, now those are the fulfilled Jews. And following the Law isn't what God asks from anyone in order to get into heaven. As far as I can tell, Falwell wouldn't make the boneheaded error of saying that Jew or Gentile would go to heaven by following the Law. I'm sure he was a better theologian than that. If Coulter was so upfront about her Christianity, she should have said that it is only through faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice and victorious resurrection, that God sees as acceptable, nothing else. She seriously needs better training.)

...

As Christians, we have a message that is already a stumblingblock to the Jews. We have to communicate it well enough so that we don't give them a reason to reject our message. What we do, who we are, our attitude, our behavior, our bad misunderstanding of Biblical principles should take a backseat. If they are to reject at all, they should reject only Jesus Christ, not Jesus plus newbie Christian with a bad attitude. The Christian should be loving and truthful, that's it. Coulter did not represent Christ nor the Christian perspective well in the interview. We've all made the mistake of not representing Christ well, I know I have on several occasions. But because she's a public figure, she bears a greater responsibility for her words. I can only hope she makes up for it in some way in the future.

Sneaky Usurpations

"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last."
- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

I'll let Ronald "The Great Communicator" answer the question on Healthcare. This was done in 1961, supported by the American Medical Association.



A few quotes from the recording:

"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project..."

"All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."

A few of his specific examples were old school, but the principles are still sound. Now compare those principles with the healthcare plans of McCain and Obama and see whose is less sneaky. Research quickly! There're only 11 days left.

PMABM Newsletter #9

Weigh in on this:
Fight Club for Geeks
The video is just below the article.

Some things to think about: Where do you draw the line between realistic training and animalistic brawling? Is there a line? How do you train for reality as safely as possible without taking away the "reality"? And it's good to train with improvised weapons, but is there a line to that as well, as in, when does it get just plain silly? Magazines are understandable, but toilet seats? Baking pans? Keyboards even?

Compare their group to the Dog Brothers. Here's the video from PMABM Newsletter #2. Which group do you prefer? Is one better than the other? What are some aspects that both share? This is a little harder: what are their differences? And is this truly reality training? When two (or more) fighters face each other for planned, ritualistic combat, does it prepare them for the surprise attack, which is what happens in real-life? Is it possible to blend the two in some kind of training exercise? Will self-defense training and sport training always be on two totally different worlds? Can you even consider their training as sport? And as I already stated: is it even self-defense?

Here are more videos from the Silicon Valley fight club.

12 Days till the Election!

This takes some time to watch, but I'll list it all down. Also, comments in parentheses by kathy of Conservative Thoughts.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:

* Twelve senators failing (12 Democrats up for re-election in 2008)
* Eleven percent approval (Lowest rating ever)
* Ten paychecks burning (Because of Democrat record tax hike)
* Ninety thousand freezing (Amount of money found in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) freezer)
* No more secret ballots (Big Labor payback for union bosses)
* $700 billion in new spending (Paid for with the largest tax hike in history)
* Six troop funding cuts (Playing political theater with the safety and security of our nation and our troops)
* Hillary’s Woodstock Museum! (What better way to spend a million dollars?)
* Four bucks a gallon (Not a single energy bill passed to help lower gas prices)
* Al Franken ranting (Angry Hollywood liberal)
* Two liberal Udalls (Mark in Colorado and Tom in New Mexico)
* And a tax hike for every family! (Thanks Democrats)

I'll have a few of my own 12 Days as well.

And in the darkness, bind them

I have now crowned The History channel as the new Discredit the Bible channel. Earlier this week I saw a documentary on the Lost Books of the Bible. The main book in question was the Testament of Solomon. In it, the narrator referred to the account of Jesus casting out a demon from a man.

A few scholars interviewed attested that, while in the middle of an exorcism, Jesus said, "One greater than Solomon is now here," talking about himself. The narrator asked, "Why did Jesus say this while in the middle of an excorcism?" Both scholar and theologian then began to answer the question. They believed that Jesus was referencing the Testament of Solomon, a rejected book of the Bible. Even though the Testament was a Christian era book, its story was accepted in Jewish culture in Jesus' time. The Testament told the story of King Solomon when he fashioned a spiritually empowered ring and forced Beelzebub and his demons to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In the documentary, there was this cheesy scene with a Middle-eastern looking king commanding these demons with a bright ring on his finger. One of the scholars recited the Elvish poem from Lord of the Rings, so that it sounded like the Testament story was some proto-Tolkien Jewish myth. Scholar and narrator proceeded to say that Jesus was referring to this story about Solomon and that Jesus himself believed it to be true. "So why was it taken out of the Bible?" they asked. At that point, I turned off the TV because it was just that dumb.

I read the passage in question found in Matthew12:22 - 42 and Luke 11:14 -32 and I chuckled. There was a whole documentary, including a book, that was based on a misreading of Scripture? I guess that's typical of what the world has to offer. In the passage, Jesus exorcised a demon and the Pharisees condemned him for it, saying Jesus was using Beelzebub to cast out demons. Guess what? The Pharisees were the ones who believed the Testament of Solomon was true, not Jesus! Jesus responds with the "house divided against itself cannot stand" answer. And even after Jesus performs the exorcism miracle and gives an intellectual answer, they had the audacity to ask him to perform more miracles for them. It's at that point when Jesus spoke of Solomon (and Jonah), but in context he was talking about the Pharisees' lack of belief that he was the prophesied Messiah. He said "the queen of Sheba herself will condemn this generation for not believing." But he said this in the same conversation after the exorcism, so when Jesus said that he was "greater than Solomon," he was most likely playing on the Pharisees' stronger belief in cultural folklore than in the Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh.

Nobody *Messes* with John McCain!

Hi, I'm Hayden Panettiere and I'm hot enough to say anything and have dumb-schmucks believe me. In all my 19 years on this Earth, I know all that there is to know about American politics. My home-schooling has trained me for the intellectual rigors of commenting on the Presidential race. I'm well-versed in international politics also, having fought those evil Japanese fishermen and their dolphin hunting. I was even awarded by those wonderful animal freaks from PETA.

Now that we've established my credibility, I'd like to say that I will only vote for a Presidential candidate who will treat his position as on-the-job training, so he could develop to his full potential. I hope you would vote for a man who has a questionable U.S. citizenship status because that only means he'll do well in international relations. I mean, I would be very diplomatic with foreign world leaders as well who want to destroy whole countries! I'd pander to their needs any day!

I want a leader who allows me to suck on the teats of government as it carries me from the cradle to the grave. Since I am a citizen, it is my right to be told by the government what I can or can't do and I want my new President to afford me more of those rights. Change is what we truly need in this country. Over time, I can only hope that this change would take as much money from me as possible so that there will be no more rich people and everyone will be middle-class. As citizens, we should be entitled to the best that the rich have to offer and give it to anyone making less than $50,000, including dead-beat dads who don't like to work because they get too much unemployment.

I know my choice for President will do his best to change America. And we will be there to unite with him as he runs it into the ground!

A Nice Proposal

Here's a common-sense approach to taking care of this whole bail-out debacle.

I don't usually like posting e-mail forwards, especially when the math is wrong, but I thought this was quite an interesting proposal for the bail-out. I wish it was this much. Hey, if the gov is going socialist, why not go for broke (like every other socialist country)? Really, if the entire $700 billion was used, it would come out to about $5,900 per fed tax payer. May not be half a mil, but it's better than a grand that a certain Presidential candidate is proposing:

A Better Bail-out Plan
by Troy LaMana

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00...

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your
family?...

(Or $3,000 to $6,000 out of the $700 billion if the math was done correctly. Or, assuming they give to those who pay their taxes, which is about 59% of the entire population, then it would be about $5,900 for a single person, $11,800 for married.)

Interesting thought, but I know it wouldn't happen.

King and Crisis

Who caused this mortgage mess?

People like to play the blame game, especially in a crisis. I'm not into playing blame games, I'm into investigating the truth. Several factors come into effect in incidents like these. No one side, no one person, is the cause. To think that any one person (or Administration in many people's minds) caused this mess is to betray petty, narrow-minded thinking. There were a number of significant nudges and pushes that inevitably brought down the house.

Someone recently noted that "the single biggest piece of legislation that has led to the financial collapse we're seeing now is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was rushed onto Bush's desk a few days after the Supreme Court appointed that clown to the Oval office." Once again, petty, narrow-minded thinking. The person who said this has such hatred for Bush that he can't even see past his psychosis. A little fact check goes a long way in not sounding like a wild-eyed liberal doofus: President Clinton was the one who signed CFMA 2000 into law, not Bush. And even then, CFMA 2000 was merely icing, not the cause of the problem. We can go all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but that was only the nudge. We'll have to find something recent and more directly connected to the crisis.

An article by Steven A. Holmes from September 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" mentioned several key ideas to the origins of this crisis. The New York Times is not the most conservative newspaper, so for it to have mentioned a Democrat party connection to the mess is at least being truthful and fair to the issue.

Some of the more interesting parts (emphases mine):

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry...

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."

(Side note: the economic boom of the 1990s was the result of Reaganomics. Politics 101 - Each Presidential administration receives the blessings or the curses of a previous administration's actions. The Clinton admin boom years were merely the result of Reagan admin's actions.)

So, really, the question is: What caused this mortgage mess? The cause was the culture of the time, an overcorrection if you will, of people's behavior, otherwise known as political correctness. Because of the strong desire for racial equality, especially after Rodney King and the L.A. riots, there seemed to be this nationwide need to be respectful to your fellow man. Racial discrimination is evil and being disrespectful to others is never good, but the response going the opposite direction was so extreme that the nation fell off the other side of the horse. Too much kumbaya, not enough common sense. In ignorance, government followed suit and equated risky lending with racial equality. Note to government: It's good to work on racial equality, bad to be stupid with money. Too little too late, unfortunately.

Now about the bailout: Do I agree with it? No. Is it necessary? Maybe. I absolutely hate it when government meddles with private sector business, even quasi-private like the FMs. But both parties took the chance nearly ten years ago and now we're all paying for it. As McCain said, this is only a tourniquet. Who would've known that government wasn't sure what would happen if it pointed a loaded gun at its foot then pulled the trigger. We'll see if Adam Smith's principles work even with massive government intervention like this. Can the invisible hand of a free market be led by the folly of statesmen? Ready to roll-over, Mr. Smith?

I guess it's time to sit back and see how another invisible hand will guide this process along.

Palin for President!

At first, I thought, What? An Alaskan governor? A virtual unknown? John really blew it this time! And who's he trying to pick up, Hillary voters? That will definitely make me not want to vote this time around.

I was disappointed enough that McCain was chosen as the GOP pick, I lost hope when I heard the announcement for his VP pick. I even told my wife how disappointed I was in how this was all turning out. Just before Palin got up for her acceptance speech, I was really skeptical and was ready to critique every line. A brunette Hillary the way McCain is a wannabe Democrat, wonderful!

After a ho-hum introduction about her life, she started to give a number of zingers against Obama. That got my attention! And then she kept going! This is definitely not Hillary! Instead of criticizing her, I found myself cheering her on! Not only that, but I started to see why McCain chose her. Hm, open-mouth-insert-foot time. Talk about a good first impression! I've always been for people who do what's right and go against the world's culture, or in this case, who go against power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians. I'm glad she didn't make many promises. What I got from her speech was an attitude of defiance against the status quo, who would take back America from those who think that greater government involvement is the answer.

Forget McCain! I'm voting for Palin.

Now with my new found energy for the election, I've been following it more closely. What got me was when Katie Couric interviewed Palin a few days ago. Couric asked Palin which Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with besides Roe vs. Wade. Palin began to work her way through an answer, but she started to fumble and then regained her composure by focusing on those decisions that supported the power of the States rather than the Federal government. She didn't bring up an example, which I can understand. Who keeps a list of Supreme Court decisions in their mind anyway? And even then, the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Brown vs. Board of Education, and that's one I agree with! (Given a little time, I recalled a couple more, but I was hazy on what they specifically talked about.) When I looked at Couric's face, I knew she wanted to make a fool out of Palin. This was most likely Couric's way to get back at Republicans after the whole Biden fiasco when he said that people saw Roosevelt on TV during the Great Depression. Now that was an actual mistake on his part, he volunteered to look like an idiot! Couric simply had it in for Palin and got her back. Cheap shot!

If I was in Palin's position, I would've responded like this:
"Hm, at this moment, I can't recall any, although I do remember studying many cases in high school and college. I've been busy as a mother and as a governor, I haven't had time to refresh my memory. Since I'm not one to play trivia games especially in interviews, I'll just have to get back to you on those. What I do know is that I disagreed with those decisions, like Roe vs. Wade, that gave more power to the Federal government and took away the power of the States and the people, a clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments..."

I can only hope Palin keeps up that tough yet classy attitude.