Let me begin by sharing my credentials as a black man. Although I clearly don’t have dark skin, and there can be no doubt that my ancestry is unquestionably of the Caucasian persuasion, I think there is enough historical precedence to identify me with the African American community. How can that be? Well, many of you will remember that Bill Clinton was sometimes referred to as “America’s first black president.” Hey, if a white man who is the former governor of a small southern state qualifies as a “brother,” there’s no reason why I can’t be one, too.
Besides, Jesse Jackson is now saying that Barack Obama is “acting like he’s white.” Who would know colors better than Mr. Rainbow Coalition himself? So if Clinton is black and Obama is white, I feel perfectly comfortable speaking as a black man on behalf of men of all colors.
Isiah Thomas, coach of the New York Knicks, made the news this week because he seems to believe that there is one standard for black men and a different one for white men. Mr. Thomas says it is deeply offensive to him when he hears a white man refer to a black woman as, well, you know, the “b-word.” A black man doing the same thing, however, is, according to Thomas, not such a big deal. It must be a part of that culture, kind of like Michael Vick’s dog fighting.
Here’s my problem with Mr. Thomas: How does a man’s being black or white give him the right to talk to any woman, black or white, in a degrading way? Call me old-fashioned, but I was raised to treat women (and all people for that matter) with respect, not to talk about them or to them in offensive ways. I think that should go for men of all colors and ethnicities, whether their name is Isiah Thomas or Don Imus.
Imus was way out of line with his comments about a group of female college basketball players, and the public outcry was loud and understandable. His career went up in flames after leaders in the African American community began calling for his head.
Here are my questions: Will Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come out publicly and call for Isiah Thomas to be fired? Is there a boycott of the New York Knicks in the works? Where is the outrage?
What will be next? Some “gangsta rapper” will come out and say that black men get a pass when it comes to roughing up black women because it’s “different” for them. Sharpton and Jackson will administer a gentle slap on the wrist, and the whole episode will be chalked up to the “African American culture.”
As a black man, I find this exceedingly offensive.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Who's The Traitor?
It was one day. Twenty-four hours. Isn’t it amazing how life as we know it in America was forever changed in one single, solitary day?
It’s been six years. Six years since that day when time seemed to stand still.
I’ll never forget the range of emotions I felt on that day. First there was confusion. Somebody reported that a small plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. Nobody knew for sure at the time if this was some bizarre accident or if it was done intentionally.
Confusion gave way to disbelief when I saw a second plane slam into the other WTC tower. Suddenly, the once fuzzy picture was becoming all too crystal clear: we were under attack. Yet it all seemed so surreal and unthinkable. How could this be happening in the land of the free?
Disbelief gave way to fear. We heard a report that a low flying plane was headed north along the Potomac River. Suddenly this unfolding drama seemed to be right in my own backyard. I lived less than a mile from the Potomac. All I could think was, “Who’s going to be next?”
Fear gave way to uncertainty. When I heard the news about a plane hitting the Pentagon, I immediately reached for the phone. My stepmother works in the Pentagon, and my dad’s office wasn’t too much further away. Desperately I dialed their numbers, praying that they were both OK. The phone lines, however, were completely jammed. I couldn’t call them and they couldn’t have called me if they had wanted to. It was a helpless feeling. Later in the day, thankfully, I got confirmation that they were both safe.
Uncertainty gave way to anxiety. I had just witnessed an act of war. I didn’t know at the time who had done it, but I knew one thing for sure: we were no longer a country at peace. Suddenly, the future looked very different. Somehow I knew that things had forever been changed. There was a nervousness down deep in my stomach, and I’ll never forget how it felt.
Anxiety gave way to anger. As my heart and brain processed the events of the day, I began to feel this seething rage inside of me. I didn’t know what could possess someone to perpetrate something like this, but I knew that we had to bring them to justice. To put it succinctly: I was hot!
But then, as the day was drawing to a close, the anger in me gave way to pride.
I had never been more proud to be an American than I was on that day. As I watched firemen and police officers risk their lives to save the lives of others, I was proud to be an American. As I considered the possibility that a group of passengers on board a plane gave their lives to prevent an attack on our Capitol, I was proud to be an American. As I watched our lawmakers standing side-by-side on the Capitol steps singing God Bless America, I was proud to be an American.
Does anybody other than me remember how, in the midst of our darkest hour, this great country became united? There was no Democrat or Republican on that day. There was no conservative or liberal on that day. There was no upper, middle or lower class on that day. We were all united simply as Americans.
Oh, what a difference six years makes.
Actually, it didn’t take six years to divide us. As a matter of fact, it only took one congressional election the following year to bring Washington back to politics as usual. And today, on the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America, the political divide in our country is a chasm that seems unbridgeable.
Yesterday, an ad appeared in The New York Times that essentially called the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, a traitor. The full-page ad was the work of moveon.org, an ultra-liberal special interest group that represents the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party. At least that’s who we thought they represented.
This ad should have been universally condemned by members of both political parties. General Petraeus is a well respected, highly decorated, and impressively qualified leader who was chosen to lead the surge in Iraq without one dissenting vote in Congress. More than that, he is not a puppet of President Bush. From all I’ve seen, General Petraeus is a straight shooter, and he’s not going to “cook the books” just to make the president look good.
But now that he’s testifying before Congress, he’s archenemy number one for moveon.org, and apparently for many of the Democrats; particularly those who are running for president. They seem to be afraid of upsetting the movers and shakers at moveon.org, therefore they refuse to condemn this ad in spite of how despicable it may be.
And so, six years after 9-11, partisan politics is alive and well in Washington. And the country is more divided now than we ever were before. Moveon.org should be ashamed of itself and issue an apology immediately. If anyone is acting like a traitor, it is this ultra-liberal organization, not our leader in Iraq.
It’s been six years. Six years since that day when time seemed to stand still.
I’ll never forget the range of emotions I felt on that day. First there was confusion. Somebody reported that a small plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. Nobody knew for sure at the time if this was some bizarre accident or if it was done intentionally.
Confusion gave way to disbelief when I saw a second plane slam into the other WTC tower. Suddenly, the once fuzzy picture was becoming all too crystal clear: we were under attack. Yet it all seemed so surreal and unthinkable. How could this be happening in the land of the free?
Disbelief gave way to fear. We heard a report that a low flying plane was headed north along the Potomac River. Suddenly this unfolding drama seemed to be right in my own backyard. I lived less than a mile from the Potomac. All I could think was, “Who’s going to be next?”
Fear gave way to uncertainty. When I heard the news about a plane hitting the Pentagon, I immediately reached for the phone. My stepmother works in the Pentagon, and my dad’s office wasn’t too much further away. Desperately I dialed their numbers, praying that they were both OK. The phone lines, however, were completely jammed. I couldn’t call them and they couldn’t have called me if they had wanted to. It was a helpless feeling. Later in the day, thankfully, I got confirmation that they were both safe.
Uncertainty gave way to anxiety. I had just witnessed an act of war. I didn’t know at the time who had done it, but I knew one thing for sure: we were no longer a country at peace. Suddenly, the future looked very different. Somehow I knew that things had forever been changed. There was a nervousness down deep in my stomach, and I’ll never forget how it felt.
Anxiety gave way to anger. As my heart and brain processed the events of the day, I began to feel this seething rage inside of me. I didn’t know what could possess someone to perpetrate something like this, but I knew that we had to bring them to justice. To put it succinctly: I was hot!
But then, as the day was drawing to a close, the anger in me gave way to pride.
I had never been more proud to be an American than I was on that day. As I watched firemen and police officers risk their lives to save the lives of others, I was proud to be an American. As I considered the possibility that a group of passengers on board a plane gave their lives to prevent an attack on our Capitol, I was proud to be an American. As I watched our lawmakers standing side-by-side on the Capitol steps singing God Bless America, I was proud to be an American.
Does anybody other than me remember how, in the midst of our darkest hour, this great country became united? There was no Democrat or Republican on that day. There was no conservative or liberal on that day. There was no upper, middle or lower class on that day. We were all united simply as Americans.
Oh, what a difference six years makes.
Actually, it didn’t take six years to divide us. As a matter of fact, it only took one congressional election the following year to bring Washington back to politics as usual. And today, on the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America, the political divide in our country is a chasm that seems unbridgeable.
Yesterday, an ad appeared in The New York Times that essentially called the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, a traitor. The full-page ad was the work of moveon.org, an ultra-liberal special interest group that represents the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party. At least that’s who we thought they represented.
This ad should have been universally condemned by members of both political parties. General Petraeus is a well respected, highly decorated, and impressively qualified leader who was chosen to lead the surge in Iraq without one dissenting vote in Congress. More than that, he is not a puppet of President Bush. From all I’ve seen, General Petraeus is a straight shooter, and he’s not going to “cook the books” just to make the president look good.
But now that he’s testifying before Congress, he’s archenemy number one for moveon.org, and apparently for many of the Democrats; particularly those who are running for president. They seem to be afraid of upsetting the movers and shakers at moveon.org, therefore they refuse to condemn this ad in spite of how despicable it may be.
And so, six years after 9-11, partisan politics is alive and well in Washington. And the country is more divided now than we ever were before. Moveon.org should be ashamed of itself and issue an apology immediately. If anyone is acting like a traitor, it is this ultra-liberal organization, not our leader in Iraq.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
And Yet They Still Don't Get It
This week's post will be short and sweet. The reason: I'm going to point you to a document that everybody (especially those on the man-made global warming bandwagon) needs to read.
It continues to boggle my mind how people like Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and chief climate change correspondent at The Weather Channel Heidi Cullen repeatedly ignore any news that would cast doubts on their theory that carbon emissions are destroying our planet. Their strategy seems to be twofold:
1. When scientific data comes out that refutes our claims of man-made global warming, we either look the other way or we vilify the person, persons, institution or institutions that are reporting the data.
2. Every time there is a heat wave anywhere in the world, immediately proclaim that it was caused by global warming. If some region is experiencing abnormally cold temperatures, let people know how that too is caused by global warming. Oh yeah, and if temperatures are running at normal levels, well, it must be global warming.
The problem with the climate change crowd comes down to two things: money and politics. For many scientists, their livelihood depends on an ongoing climate crisis. If there is no global warming, there will be no funding for them and they'll have to figure out another way to make a living. For politicians who pander to the environmentalist fringe, coming out now and admitting that they've been wrong about global warming is tantamount to political suicide.
And so, the misinformation campaigns go on, and good people continue to be called despicable names all because they dared to have a difference of opinion.
Everybody do me a favor and read this. Then decide for yourself whether Gore, Kennedy, Cullen and the rest are giving us all the facts.
It continues to boggle my mind how people like Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and chief climate change correspondent at The Weather Channel Heidi Cullen repeatedly ignore any news that would cast doubts on their theory that carbon emissions are destroying our planet. Their strategy seems to be twofold:
1. When scientific data comes out that refutes our claims of man-made global warming, we either look the other way or we vilify the person, persons, institution or institutions that are reporting the data.
2. Every time there is a heat wave anywhere in the world, immediately proclaim that it was caused by global warming. If some region is experiencing abnormally cold temperatures, let people know how that too is caused by global warming. Oh yeah, and if temperatures are running at normal levels, well, it must be global warming.
The problem with the climate change crowd comes down to two things: money and politics. For many scientists, their livelihood depends on an ongoing climate crisis. If there is no global warming, there will be no funding for them and they'll have to figure out another way to make a living. For politicians who pander to the environmentalist fringe, coming out now and admitting that they've been wrong about global warming is tantamount to political suicide.
And so, the misinformation campaigns go on, and good people continue to be called despicable names all because they dared to have a difference of opinion.
Everybody do me a favor and read this. Then decide for yourself whether Gore, Kennedy, Cullen and the rest are giving us all the facts.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Blame It All On Bush: Part Deux
First it was Katrina. Then it was global warming. Then it was the terrorist attacks in Great Britain. All three catastrophic events attributable to the same person: President George W. Bush. So it was only a matter of time before our commander in chief instigated another dastardly plot to put good, innocent people in harm’s way. What did the president do this time? He caused a bridge to collapse in Minnesota.
That’s what the liberals want you to believe. Their line of thinking: If it weren’t for all the money Bush is spending in Iraq, we’d have plenty of money to fix America’s aging infrastructure. Never mind that Minnesota has been running a 2.1 billion dollar surplus in recent years. Never mind that they’re using that money to build things like stadiums and other entertainment venues (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Never mind that keeping this bridge safe was a state responsibility, not a federal one. None of those things matter to liberals who wait breathless with anticipation for the next major tragedy that they can blame on George W. Bush.
What will be next? What if Amtrak had a derailment? We all know that’s never happened before. So of course, when that does happen for the first time (yes, I’m being sarcastic), some liberal blogger will, within 12 hours, issue a statement vilifying President Bush for his complicity in the accident. Within 24 hours, untold numbers of journalists in the mainstream media will jump on the “blame Bush bandwagon.” I can already hear in my mind the opening line of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
Yesterday’s derailment of an Amtrak passenger train is being blamed on worn out railroad tracks, which are a result of the Bush administration’s total and complete irresponsibility in dealing with the problem of catastrophic global warming. Had the president been more concerned about the environment, he would have encouraged more people to take the train rather than drive their gas-guzzling SUV’s. With the White House promoting Amtrak to combat climate change, more federal money would have been shifted to repair the aging rails in this country. And fewer people would have died. Thanks a lot, Mr. President!
OK, so that last sentence probably won’t be aired, but you know that’s what Katie will be thinking. Other than that, I don’t think my little assumption is too far-fetched. It may be Diane Sawyer or Jack Cafferty instead of Katie, but you get the idea. Actually, they’ll all just be singing a different verse of the same tune.
Of course, my hope and prayer is that there will be no natural disasters or infrastructure failures in the foreseeable future. But as long as Bush is president and tragedies continue to happen, the liberals in this country will always have something to look forward to.
That’s what the liberals want you to believe. Their line of thinking: If it weren’t for all the money Bush is spending in Iraq, we’d have plenty of money to fix America’s aging infrastructure. Never mind that Minnesota has been running a 2.1 billion dollar surplus in recent years. Never mind that they’re using that money to build things like stadiums and other entertainment venues (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Never mind that keeping this bridge safe was a state responsibility, not a federal one. None of those things matter to liberals who wait breathless with anticipation for the next major tragedy that they can blame on George W. Bush.
What will be next? What if Amtrak had a derailment? We all know that’s never happened before. So of course, when that does happen for the first time (yes, I’m being sarcastic), some liberal blogger will, within 12 hours, issue a statement vilifying President Bush for his complicity in the accident. Within 24 hours, untold numbers of journalists in the mainstream media will jump on the “blame Bush bandwagon.” I can already hear in my mind the opening line of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
Yesterday’s derailment of an Amtrak passenger train is being blamed on worn out railroad tracks, which are a result of the Bush administration’s total and complete irresponsibility in dealing with the problem of catastrophic global warming. Had the president been more concerned about the environment, he would have encouraged more people to take the train rather than drive their gas-guzzling SUV’s. With the White House promoting Amtrak to combat climate change, more federal money would have been shifted to repair the aging rails in this country. And fewer people would have died. Thanks a lot, Mr. President!
OK, so that last sentence probably won’t be aired, but you know that’s what Katie will be thinking. Other than that, I don’t think my little assumption is too far-fetched. It may be Diane Sawyer or Jack Cafferty instead of Katie, but you get the idea. Actually, they’ll all just be singing a different verse of the same tune.
Of course, my hope and prayer is that there will be no natural disasters or infrastructure failures in the foreseeable future. But as long as Bush is president and tragedies continue to happen, the liberals in this country will always have something to look forward to.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Laws We Enforce
My life is in danger. In fact, I’m not so sure it’s safe to leave the house anymore. And the tragedy of it all is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are already laws on the books to protect me, and yet nobody seems to be enforcing those laws. I’m contemplating becoming a monk and living the rest of my life in a monastery just to ensure a safe existence.
What has me so frightened? Dozens, possibly even scores of people driving on federal, state and local highways while completely ignoring the laws mandating that they wear a safety belt. And considering that nobody enforces those laws, I shudder in fear to think of the homeland security implications of it all.
But wait a minute. Those laws are being enforced. In my state, for instance, we are continually being told to “click it or ticket.” Local and state police are on a vigilant search for anybody violating the seat belt laws that are already on the books. Whew! Maybe I can forego that vow of silence and continue to set foot outside my door every now and then.
My question, however, is this: Why do we spend millions of dollars to go after those who violate seat belt laws but hardly lift a finger to prosecute people who violate our immigration laws?
Not that I’ve got anything against wearing a safety belt; I think it’s the wisest choice every time. But wouldn’t it make more sense, from a safety and security standpoint, to take the money, time and manpower we use to catch seat belt lawbreakers and reallocate it to go after immigration lawbreakers? After all, the laws are already on the books. What if we prosecuted illegal immigrants and those who employ them with the same determination that we display when we prosecute unbuckled drivers? Which laws, if properly enforced, would make our nation safer and more prosperous?
Well, some cities in our country have decided to do the right thing. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, for example, has been enforcing laws that punish those who would do business with illegal immigrants. Their town has grown by 50% in recent years, but the tax base in Hazelton has increased not one iota. Zilch! Nada! None! But then, that’s what happens when illegal immigrants move in and enjoy the benefits of being a member of the community without all those pesky responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
With the city’s resources being stretched to the max by the influx of illegals, the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta, has taken notice and cites some disturbing statistics: “Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. Thirty percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don’t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn’t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn’t be here.”
So Hazelton did something revolutionary. They got tough on those who break their laws. And what was their reward? A federal judge, with the blessings of the ACLU, has told them they’ve got to quit enforcing these laws. The rationale for the decision by U.S. district judge James Munley is that immigration is a national issue and local initiatives might interfere with congressional objectives. And why wouldn’t he rule that way? After all, there’s no better organization to handle the current immigration crisis than our elected legislators in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure they’ll handle this about as well as they did their checking accounts at the Capitol Hill Bank back in the early nineties.
Judge Munley refused to use the term “illegal” to describe the immigrants in question, choosing instead to call them “unauthorized.” Radio and television personality Glenn Beck, who has an amazing ability to speak basic common sense, made a great observation: “I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.”
And so illegal immigration continues to be a problem in our country, and will probably continue to be as long as we’ve got activist judges and the ACLU leading the way. The message to illegal immigrants in the United States: you can sleep well tonight; secure in a country that won’t enforce the laws that would prosecute you.
Unbuckled drivers, however, had better watch their backs.
What has me so frightened? Dozens, possibly even scores of people driving on federal, state and local highways while completely ignoring the laws mandating that they wear a safety belt. And considering that nobody enforces those laws, I shudder in fear to think of the homeland security implications of it all.
But wait a minute. Those laws are being enforced. In my state, for instance, we are continually being told to “click it or ticket.” Local and state police are on a vigilant search for anybody violating the seat belt laws that are already on the books. Whew! Maybe I can forego that vow of silence and continue to set foot outside my door every now and then.
My question, however, is this: Why do we spend millions of dollars to go after those who violate seat belt laws but hardly lift a finger to prosecute people who violate our immigration laws?
Not that I’ve got anything against wearing a safety belt; I think it’s the wisest choice every time. But wouldn’t it make more sense, from a safety and security standpoint, to take the money, time and manpower we use to catch seat belt lawbreakers and reallocate it to go after immigration lawbreakers? After all, the laws are already on the books. What if we prosecuted illegal immigrants and those who employ them with the same determination that we display when we prosecute unbuckled drivers? Which laws, if properly enforced, would make our nation safer and more prosperous?
Well, some cities in our country have decided to do the right thing. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, for example, has been enforcing laws that punish those who would do business with illegal immigrants. Their town has grown by 50% in recent years, but the tax base in Hazelton has increased not one iota. Zilch! Nada! None! But then, that’s what happens when illegal immigrants move in and enjoy the benefits of being a member of the community without all those pesky responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
With the city’s resources being stretched to the max by the influx of illegals, the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta, has taken notice and cites some disturbing statistics: “Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. Thirty percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don’t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn’t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn’t be here.”
So Hazelton did something revolutionary. They got tough on those who break their laws. And what was their reward? A federal judge, with the blessings of the ACLU, has told them they’ve got to quit enforcing these laws. The rationale for the decision by U.S. district judge James Munley is that immigration is a national issue and local initiatives might interfere with congressional objectives. And why wouldn’t he rule that way? After all, there’s no better organization to handle the current immigration crisis than our elected legislators in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure they’ll handle this about as well as they did their checking accounts at the Capitol Hill Bank back in the early nineties.
Judge Munley refused to use the term “illegal” to describe the immigrants in question, choosing instead to call them “unauthorized.” Radio and television personality Glenn Beck, who has an amazing ability to speak basic common sense, made a great observation: “I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.”
And so illegal immigration continues to be a problem in our country, and will probably continue to be as long as we’ve got activist judges and the ACLU leading the way. The message to illegal immigrants in the United States: you can sleep well tonight; secure in a country that won’t enforce the laws that would prosecute you.
Unbuckled drivers, however, had better watch their backs.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
One More Week
I've been out of town and not able to update this week. Just consider this my summer break. Will definitely post a new column next week on Tuesday, July 31.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
No Post This Week
My column will return on Tuesday, July 24. Let me suggest you use this off week to re-read the first 12 installments of The Lambert Commentary. Let's face it, we all need a refresher course every now and then. See you next week.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Confessions Of A Global Warming Convert
Now it all makes sense. Now I can see how wrong I’ve been. Now I can stop all the ranting I’ve done about the myth of man-made global warming and start working to reduce the effects of my personal carbon footprint by going to Al Gore’s website and buying some carbon credits. There’s no denying it: I’m a changed man.
Forget the fact that there are scores of credible scientists who have risked their reputations, their funding, and even their careers by saying that the idea of man-made global warming is a questionable hypothesis. Forget the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting without one single sport utility vehicle filling the atmosphere with “dangerous” CO2 emissions. Forget the fact that the earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history. And forget the fact that Buenos Aires has just experienced their first snowfall in 89 years and Johannesburg last week had the first snow they have seen since 1981.
None of those things matter anymore. This past Saturday, the entire global warming discussion was permanently transformed. The debate over climate change has been brought to an end.
Let me be the first to apologize for my past denials of the reality of man-made global warming. If I had known then what I know now, things would have been quite different. I would have voted for Al Gore in 2000. I would have protested outside the White House and gone on a hunger strike until President Bush signed off on the Kyoto Protocol. I would have limited my toilet paper usage to one square in an effort to do my part to save the planet (Sheryl Crowe is a lot smarter than I gave her credit for). I would have given up my gas guzzling Dodge pick-up in exchange for a 1987 Yugo converted to run on recycled vegetable oil.
Alas, my earlier transgressions are ever before me. And yet, I can’t undo the past. All I can do is, starting with the man in the mirror, begin to make a change (thanks to Michael Jackson for giving me the words to express myself). So here I am: the new Shane Lambert.
What has changed my mind, you ask? I thought that was obvious.
This past weekend, Snoop Dogg said that global warming is bad. If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what will.
Forget the fact that there are scores of credible scientists who have risked their reputations, their funding, and even their careers by saying that the idea of man-made global warming is a questionable hypothesis. Forget the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting without one single sport utility vehicle filling the atmosphere with “dangerous” CO2 emissions. Forget the fact that the earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history. And forget the fact that Buenos Aires has just experienced their first snowfall in 89 years and Johannesburg last week had the first snow they have seen since 1981.
None of those things matter anymore. This past Saturday, the entire global warming discussion was permanently transformed. The debate over climate change has been brought to an end.
Let me be the first to apologize for my past denials of the reality of man-made global warming. If I had known then what I know now, things would have been quite different. I would have voted for Al Gore in 2000. I would have protested outside the White House and gone on a hunger strike until President Bush signed off on the Kyoto Protocol. I would have limited my toilet paper usage to one square in an effort to do my part to save the planet (Sheryl Crowe is a lot smarter than I gave her credit for). I would have given up my gas guzzling Dodge pick-up in exchange for a 1987 Yugo converted to run on recycled vegetable oil.
Alas, my earlier transgressions are ever before me. And yet, I can’t undo the past. All I can do is, starting with the man in the mirror, begin to make a change (thanks to Michael Jackson for giving me the words to express myself). So here I am: the new Shane Lambert.
What has changed my mind, you ask? I thought that was obvious.
This past weekend, Snoop Dogg said that global warming is bad. If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what will.
Monday, July 2, 2007
It's Somebody Else's Fault
I grew up watching professional wrestling. When I was five-years-old, my father accepted a new job that required our family to relocate to Columbus, Georgia. During that time, we were frequent visitors to the Columbus Municipal Auditorium to witness first hand the stars of Georgia Championship Wrestling. As a young boy, I cheered wildly for the good guys like Tommy “Wildfire” Rich and Mr. Wrestling #2. I booed furiously when bad guys like Mad Dog Buzz Sawyer and The Great Kabuki made their way to the ring. (What was that green stuff that would come out of Kabuki's mouth?)
My grandfather used to tell me that the whole thing was fake; that the same guys who beat each other senseless in the ring would later leave the arena together and go out for a bite to eat. Although I was certain that he was wrong about that, it wouldn’t have mattered to me if I had known he was right. Just seeing those superstars up close and personal was a thrill for me, and fake or not, it was incredibly entertaining.
As I grew older and we moved away from the Columbus area, my interest in professional wrestling began to wane. It wasn’t until my mid-twenties that I became somewhat fascinated by wrestling again. This time, however, I was sure it was all just a show. Honestly, I didn't care. I guess you could say it was like a soap opera for men. The plot lines were intriguing, and the athletic stunts pulled off by the performers made it compelling television. I never watched the WWF/WWE, primarily because I was quite uncomfortable with how vulgar it had become. It was the WCW (Ted Turner’s attempt to compete with Vince McMahon's WWF) that caught my attention, and I became a regular viewer in the nineties. I know it was incredibly immature and I was a minister and probably shouldn’t have wasted my time with it, but hey, I’m a guy.
Eventually I outgrew this phase in my life. OK, so I became a married man and the WCW went out of business, but I like to think that I outgrew it. I’ve not really followed professional wrestling closely since then, so I feel incredibly out of the loop even discussing it. That being said, however, I was shocked last week to learn of the tragic murder-suicide involving wrestler Chris Benoit and his family. What would lead a man to kill his wife on Friday, his son on Saturday, and take his own life on Sunday?
There have been attempts to blame Benoit’s actions on his obvious steroid abuse. I would never condone the use of performance enhancing drugs for athletes, but to put the blame on steroids is an attempt to shift responsibility. I have no doubt that these drugs did irreparable harm to Benoit, and they may have even contributed to his mindset. That, however, is no excuse for the evil actions that led to three deaths in three days.
Some have and will put the blame on professional wrestling. And why wouldn’t they? After all, this is a sport . . . I mean form of entertainment that has become increasingly violent and more bizarre as the years have gone by. I thought things were pretty extreme when Buzz Sawyer used a belt to whip Tommy Rich back in the early eighties. Kids watching wrestling today would probably laugh at such an incident, most likely thinking it moderately boring and incredibly lame. In today’s wrestling world, the brutality has got to be over the top and the shock factor off the charts. And much of the subject matter in today’s televised broadcasts of professional wrestling would have easily earned an “R” rating for a theatrical release not too many years ago.
But is wrestling to blame for the Benoit murder-suicide? Without condoning the current state of professional wrestling, I have to conclude that there is only one who bears the responsibility for this tragedy: the person who perpetrated it.
These attempts by society to try to find something or someone else to blame have led to a culture where we have a hard time accepting responsibility for ourselves. Why is it in this country that we’ve always got to go back and find some excuse for the detestable things we do? Whatever happened to people being accountable for their actions instead of trying to place the blame on their parents, their employer, or their miserable lot in life?
What we need in the world today are people who are not afraid to stand up and say, “It’s me! I’m to blame for how messed up I am, and I need somebody to pull me out of this pit I’m in.” And then, when a person comes to grips with the reality that it is their own sin that has led them to where they are, that is when they are ready to receive the forgiveness that is available only through Jesus Christ.
Until we recognize that we are sinners, we’ll never recognize our need for a Savior. And we’ll keep trying to blame our problems on everybody and everything else.
Chris Benoit was, I am certain, negatively affected by the performance enhancing drugs he chose to use. Similarly, I have no doubt that his choice of career as a professional wrestler took its toll on his physical and mental well-being. But that doesn’t change the fact that those were choices he made.
It is often said that with freedom comes great responsibility. Nowhere is that more true than with the freedom of choice.
My grandfather used to tell me that the whole thing was fake; that the same guys who beat each other senseless in the ring would later leave the arena together and go out for a bite to eat. Although I was certain that he was wrong about that, it wouldn’t have mattered to me if I had known he was right. Just seeing those superstars up close and personal was a thrill for me, and fake or not, it was incredibly entertaining.
As I grew older and we moved away from the Columbus area, my interest in professional wrestling began to wane. It wasn’t until my mid-twenties that I became somewhat fascinated by wrestling again. This time, however, I was sure it was all just a show. Honestly, I didn't care. I guess you could say it was like a soap opera for men. The plot lines were intriguing, and the athletic stunts pulled off by the performers made it compelling television. I never watched the WWF/WWE, primarily because I was quite uncomfortable with how vulgar it had become. It was the WCW (Ted Turner’s attempt to compete with Vince McMahon's WWF) that caught my attention, and I became a regular viewer in the nineties. I know it was incredibly immature and I was a minister and probably shouldn’t have wasted my time with it, but hey, I’m a guy.
Eventually I outgrew this phase in my life. OK, so I became a married man and the WCW went out of business, but I like to think that I outgrew it. I’ve not really followed professional wrestling closely since then, so I feel incredibly out of the loop even discussing it. That being said, however, I was shocked last week to learn of the tragic murder-suicide involving wrestler Chris Benoit and his family. What would lead a man to kill his wife on Friday, his son on Saturday, and take his own life on Sunday?
There have been attempts to blame Benoit’s actions on his obvious steroid abuse. I would never condone the use of performance enhancing drugs for athletes, but to put the blame on steroids is an attempt to shift responsibility. I have no doubt that these drugs did irreparable harm to Benoit, and they may have even contributed to his mindset. That, however, is no excuse for the evil actions that led to three deaths in three days.
Some have and will put the blame on professional wrestling. And why wouldn’t they? After all, this is a sport . . . I mean form of entertainment that has become increasingly violent and more bizarre as the years have gone by. I thought things were pretty extreme when Buzz Sawyer used a belt to whip Tommy Rich back in the early eighties. Kids watching wrestling today would probably laugh at such an incident, most likely thinking it moderately boring and incredibly lame. In today’s wrestling world, the brutality has got to be over the top and the shock factor off the charts. And much of the subject matter in today’s televised broadcasts of professional wrestling would have easily earned an “R” rating for a theatrical release not too many years ago.
But is wrestling to blame for the Benoit murder-suicide? Without condoning the current state of professional wrestling, I have to conclude that there is only one who bears the responsibility for this tragedy: the person who perpetrated it.
These attempts by society to try to find something or someone else to blame have led to a culture where we have a hard time accepting responsibility for ourselves. Why is it in this country that we’ve always got to go back and find some excuse for the detestable things we do? Whatever happened to people being accountable for their actions instead of trying to place the blame on their parents, their employer, or their miserable lot in life?
What we need in the world today are people who are not afraid to stand up and say, “It’s me! I’m to blame for how messed up I am, and I need somebody to pull me out of this pit I’m in.” And then, when a person comes to grips with the reality that it is their own sin that has led them to where they are, that is when they are ready to receive the forgiveness that is available only through Jesus Christ.
Until we recognize that we are sinners, we’ll never recognize our need for a Savior. And we’ll keep trying to blame our problems on everybody and everything else.
Chris Benoit was, I am certain, negatively affected by the performance enhancing drugs he chose to use. Similarly, I have no doubt that his choice of career as a professional wrestler took its toll on his physical and mental well-being. But that doesn’t change the fact that those were choices he made.
It is often said that with freedom comes great responsibility. Nowhere is that more true than with the freedom of choice.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Is This Political Blackmail?
Playing politics is nothing new in Washington. In fact, it is something that we've come to expect from both political parties. And I guess there are a few things that get done that way when nothing else will work. But there are some issues where politics should be set aside and doing the right thing should be paramount.
A story appeared yesterday saying that some Republican congressmen have threatened to pull their support of war funding unless President Bush backs off on the illegal immigration bill. Somebody please tell me that they were misquoted; that this was just a big misunderstanding. Surely they're not planning to withdraw funding for our troops in harm's way simply to gain leverage in the debate over the amnesty legislation.
Now don't misunderstand me; I am wholly opposed to this bill that would grant legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. I think I've made that clear in some of my earlier columns. If we're going to do this, why don't we just pronounce all other lawbreakers in our country innocent, as well? Drug dealers, you get a free pass. Prostitutes, you're in the clear. Bank robbers, just keep the money. After all, you risked your life to pull off your illegal undertaking, and you should be rewarded for your bravery. Besides, you did it to help your family.
Our lawmakers in Washington wouldn't dare decriminalize 99% of all criminal activity in this country (well, most of them wouldn't). So why do many feel, along with our President, that illegal immigration is the one crime that's not really a crime? Are they afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot? With all due respect to our national leaders, this has nothing to do with race or bigotry. It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong (not to mention the national security implications behind it all). With immigration, as with everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. We shouldn't be rewarding these lawbreakers who are doing things the wrong way.
Having said all of that, I must admit, however, that I don't think this issue is worth sacrificing support for our troops. If the only way this bill can be defeated is by using our troops as pawns in the political process, then the cost is too high. What will be next?
Today we've conveyed to the president our intention of withholding funds for orphaned children in this country. Unless he votes with us, we're cutting off money for the kids. Maybe next time he'll think twice before he supports some legislation that we don't agree with.
Absurd? Not much more so than threatening to hold our troops hostage in a political power play. It's just as wrong when the Republicans do it as it is when the Democrats do it. And all who would participate in such a thing should be ashamed.
You don't have to read much of what I write to get a sense of which way I lean politically. More often than not, I agree with the Republicans. But I'm not going to walk in lockstep with everything they say when my conscience would dictate another direction. I'm deeply disappointed with our president over his support of this amnesty bill. I'm equally disappointed with those Republican congressmen who have shown a willingness to play politics with our troops in harm's way.
Let's just pray that this bill will be defeated without having to use our fighting men and women as tools in the political process. They deserve much better.
A story appeared yesterday saying that some Republican congressmen have threatened to pull their support of war funding unless President Bush backs off on the illegal immigration bill. Somebody please tell me that they were misquoted; that this was just a big misunderstanding. Surely they're not planning to withdraw funding for our troops in harm's way simply to gain leverage in the debate over the amnesty legislation.
Now don't misunderstand me; I am wholly opposed to this bill that would grant legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. I think I've made that clear in some of my earlier columns. If we're going to do this, why don't we just pronounce all other lawbreakers in our country innocent, as well? Drug dealers, you get a free pass. Prostitutes, you're in the clear. Bank robbers, just keep the money. After all, you risked your life to pull off your illegal undertaking, and you should be rewarded for your bravery. Besides, you did it to help your family.
Our lawmakers in Washington wouldn't dare decriminalize 99% of all criminal activity in this country (well, most of them wouldn't). So why do many feel, along with our President, that illegal immigration is the one crime that's not really a crime? Are they afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot? With all due respect to our national leaders, this has nothing to do with race or bigotry. It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong (not to mention the national security implications behind it all). With immigration, as with everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. We shouldn't be rewarding these lawbreakers who are doing things the wrong way.
Having said all of that, I must admit, however, that I don't think this issue is worth sacrificing support for our troops. If the only way this bill can be defeated is by using our troops as pawns in the political process, then the cost is too high. What will be next?
Today we've conveyed to the president our intention of withholding funds for orphaned children in this country. Unless he votes with us, we're cutting off money for the kids. Maybe next time he'll think twice before he supports some legislation that we don't agree with.
Absurd? Not much more so than threatening to hold our troops hostage in a political power play. It's just as wrong when the Republicans do it as it is when the Democrats do it. And all who would participate in such a thing should be ashamed.
You don't have to read much of what I write to get a sense of which way I lean politically. More often than not, I agree with the Republicans. But I'm not going to walk in lockstep with everything they say when my conscience would dictate another direction. I'm deeply disappointed with our president over his support of this amnesty bill. I'm equally disappointed with those Republican congressmen who have shown a willingness to play politics with our troops in harm's way.
Let's just pray that this bill will be defeated without having to use our fighting men and women as tools in the political process. They deserve much better.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Lott To Think About
With the presidential election coming up next year, it’s time to start figuring out which candidate most deserves your vote. And the only way to do that, obviously, is by tuning in to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to see which candidate they are supporting. We average Americans are clearly not smart enough to make an important decision like that on our own. No, we must listen to talk radio and then follow their particular marching orders without any reservations. It’s so nice not to have to think for ourselves. We just incline our ears toward the radio and process the information like robots that can do nothing but follow their master’s instructions.
Let’s face it; the average American is dumb as a brick. OK, I don’t actually believe that, but that’s what Mississippi Senator Trent Lott seems to believe. He gives the impression that the powerful talk radio hosts are controlling people’s thoughts and actions, so much so that he wants something done about it. Last week, Senator Lott said, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
His implication? That Americans aren’t smart enough to make up their own minds, and talk radio is essentially running the country by methodically brainwashing the masses. Therefore, something must be done immediately to deprogram the indoctrinated multitudes and stop talk radio from further taking over America.
Maybe I read too much into Senator Lott’s comments, but it sounds eerily similar to the recent cries from the left to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I guess when Air America (a liberal talk radio network) proved to be a miserable failure; they had to find some other way to stem the tide of right-wing voices that are so prominent on the airwaves. Should the Fairness Doctrine be revived, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in this country. Talk radio programs would be forced off the air because they don’t meet a certain politically correct standard. Conservative talk radio would become a thing of the past and liberal talk radio would, well, nothing would really change since there’s never actually been a truly successful liberal talk show on the radio.
So why is the conservative senior senator from Mississippi coming out now and attacking talk radio? Well, he’s unhappy with how the industry has framed the debate over the illegal immigration bill. Senator Lott, for reasons unknown, is a big supporter of this amnesty plan. And he seems to think that talk radio, that massive entity that is “running the country,” is having a direct effect on how Americans feel about this bill.
Memo to Senator Lott:
I lived in Mississippi for four years. I even voted for you while I was living there. You’re a good man. You’ve been a good senator. I haven’t always agreed with you on everything, but for the most part I think you’re a stand-up guy. So please know my heart when I break the following news to you:
I DON’T NEED RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY TO TELL ME HOW I SHOULD FEEL ABOUT A BILL THAT GIVES LEGAL STATUS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY! I DON’T NEED NEAL BOORTZ AND MICHAEL SAVAGE TO EXPLAIN TO ME THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP! I’M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF THINKING FOR MYSELF AND FORMING A PERSONAL OPINION WITHOUT THE VOICES OF LAURA INGRAHAM OR MARK LEVIN TELLING ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!
There, I’ve said it. Sorry for shouting, but you know how worked up we talk radio listeners can get sometimes. Please senator, if you think something needs to be done about talk radio, don’t join forces with Teddy Kennedy to do it. In fact, don’t do anything. Leave it alone. Talk radio isn’t running this country, and the American people aren’t nearly as uninformed as you elites in Washington seem to think we are.
Respectfully,
Shane Lambert
P.S. Have a nice day!
Anybody think I’ll hear back from him?
Let’s face it; the average American is dumb as a brick. OK, I don’t actually believe that, but that’s what Mississippi Senator Trent Lott seems to believe. He gives the impression that the powerful talk radio hosts are controlling people’s thoughts and actions, so much so that he wants something done about it. Last week, Senator Lott said, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
His implication? That Americans aren’t smart enough to make up their own minds, and talk radio is essentially running the country by methodically brainwashing the masses. Therefore, something must be done immediately to deprogram the indoctrinated multitudes and stop talk radio from further taking over America.
Maybe I read too much into Senator Lott’s comments, but it sounds eerily similar to the recent cries from the left to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I guess when Air America (a liberal talk radio network) proved to be a miserable failure; they had to find some other way to stem the tide of right-wing voices that are so prominent on the airwaves. Should the Fairness Doctrine be revived, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in this country. Talk radio programs would be forced off the air because they don’t meet a certain politically correct standard. Conservative talk radio would become a thing of the past and liberal talk radio would, well, nothing would really change since there’s never actually been a truly successful liberal talk show on the radio.
So why is the conservative senior senator from Mississippi coming out now and attacking talk radio? Well, he’s unhappy with how the industry has framed the debate over the illegal immigration bill. Senator Lott, for reasons unknown, is a big supporter of this amnesty plan. And he seems to think that talk radio, that massive entity that is “running the country,” is having a direct effect on how Americans feel about this bill.
Memo to Senator Lott:
I lived in Mississippi for four years. I even voted for you while I was living there. You’re a good man. You’ve been a good senator. I haven’t always agreed with you on everything, but for the most part I think you’re a stand-up guy. So please know my heart when I break the following news to you:
I DON’T NEED RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY TO TELL ME HOW I SHOULD FEEL ABOUT A BILL THAT GIVES LEGAL STATUS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY! I DON’T NEED NEAL BOORTZ AND MICHAEL SAVAGE TO EXPLAIN TO ME THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP! I’M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF THINKING FOR MYSELF AND FORMING A PERSONAL OPINION WITHOUT THE VOICES OF LAURA INGRAHAM OR MARK LEVIN TELLING ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!
There, I’ve said it. Sorry for shouting, but you know how worked up we talk radio listeners can get sometimes. Please senator, if you think something needs to be done about talk radio, don’t join forces with Teddy Kennedy to do it. In fact, don’t do anything. Leave it alone. Talk radio isn’t running this country, and the American people aren’t nearly as uninformed as you elites in Washington seem to think we are.
Respectfully,
Shane Lambert
P.S. Have a nice day!
Anybody think I’ll hear back from him?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The More Things Change...
“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a congress.” That is how Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, through the character of John Adams, begin their somewhat historical play 1776. Every time I’ve watched the movie version of this Broadway classic, Adams’ words have always conjured up images of our senators and representatives in Washington D.C. And although that may appropriately describe some of our national leaders, I’ve now come to recognize that these words more accurately describe our state congressional delegation in Montgomery.
Why is it that, for the most part, when the state of Alabama makes national headlines, the news is usually embarrassing? Although I realize my home state has had a lot of black marks in its history, I have maintained a steadfast belief that we have largely put our past transgressions behind us and are moving forward. Many people who come to visit Alabama for the first time are amazed that there are no more police dogs attacking African Americans, no more bus burnings, and no more chants of “segregation forever.” They are even more surprised to discover that most people in Alabama actually have all of their teeth and are more than able to form coherent, intelligent sentences and engage in thoughtful conversation. What they find, in other words, is a state and people whose reality is far-removed from universal perception.
But then there are national headlines like this one from last week: “Fistfight breaks out on floor of Alabama Senate.” And to top it all off, the whole thing was captured on video and has been played via television and the Internet for the whole world to see. So once again, the stereotypical image of Alabama as being a backwards-thinking state made up of backwards-thinking people continues to be perpetuated. And that, my friends, is a shame.
What needs to happen is a good old fashioned “throw the bums out” housecleaning in Montgomery. We need a state congressional delegation that can accomplish more in a legislative session than just giving themselves a 61% pay raise (which is about all they’ve accomplished recently). We need leaders, on both sides of the aisle, that will represent the interests of the state of Alabama as well as they represent the interests of their own districts. And we need legislators who will not bow down to the powerful special interest groups in our state. Our current congressional leaders (there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one) have become a joke in their own state, and the time has come for a new direction in Montgomery.
The state of Alabama, fortunately, has moved past it’s dark and disturbing past. From the rocket scientists who call Huntsville home to the world-class medical professionals in Birmingham to the players in the Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, our state has much to be proud of. Alabamians are not, as we are often portrayed, a bunch of back-woods rednecks (well, most of us aren’t). There are a lot of good old country folks here, but that doesn’t make us ignorant. Just because we like to eat pinto beans and corn bread doesn’t mean we are a third world country. We have clung to all the things that were good about our past while discarding those things that were abominable.
Alabama has come a long way in the past fifty years. Too bad our state legislature hasn’t.
Why is it that, for the most part, when the state of Alabama makes national headlines, the news is usually embarrassing? Although I realize my home state has had a lot of black marks in its history, I have maintained a steadfast belief that we have largely put our past transgressions behind us and are moving forward. Many people who come to visit Alabama for the first time are amazed that there are no more police dogs attacking African Americans, no more bus burnings, and no more chants of “segregation forever.” They are even more surprised to discover that most people in Alabama actually have all of their teeth and are more than able to form coherent, intelligent sentences and engage in thoughtful conversation. What they find, in other words, is a state and people whose reality is far-removed from universal perception.
But then there are national headlines like this one from last week: “Fistfight breaks out on floor of Alabama Senate.” And to top it all off, the whole thing was captured on video and has been played via television and the Internet for the whole world to see. So once again, the stereotypical image of Alabama as being a backwards-thinking state made up of backwards-thinking people continues to be perpetuated. And that, my friends, is a shame.
What needs to happen is a good old fashioned “throw the bums out” housecleaning in Montgomery. We need a state congressional delegation that can accomplish more in a legislative session than just giving themselves a 61% pay raise (which is about all they’ve accomplished recently). We need leaders, on both sides of the aisle, that will represent the interests of the state of Alabama as well as they represent the interests of their own districts. And we need legislators who will not bow down to the powerful special interest groups in our state. Our current congressional leaders (there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one) have become a joke in their own state, and the time has come for a new direction in Montgomery.
The state of Alabama, fortunately, has moved past it’s dark and disturbing past. From the rocket scientists who call Huntsville home to the world-class medical professionals in Birmingham to the players in the Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, our state has much to be proud of. Alabamians are not, as we are often portrayed, a bunch of back-woods rednecks (well, most of us aren’t). There are a lot of good old country folks here, but that doesn’t make us ignorant. Just because we like to eat pinto beans and corn bread doesn’t mean we are a third world country. We have clung to all the things that were good about our past while discarding those things that were abominable.
Alabama has come a long way in the past fifty years. Too bad our state legislature hasn’t.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Blame It All On Bush
When is good news really bad news? Answer: When you’re a liberal and the good news is concerning a victory in the war on terror. The last thing the Democrats want to hear about as they are gearing up for next year’s presidential election is that our country may be actually doing something right. And when there is the slightest hint of good news, the left-wing playbook calls for an all-out assault on President Bush.
Last week’s news about a thwarted terrorist plot to blow up the jet fuel pipeline at JFK airport should have been acknowledged by Democrats as a victory in the war on terror. That, however, might make George Bush look good, which in turn might make Republicans look good, which in turn might lead to the Democrats losing next year’s presidential election. So the only recourse they have is to blame the whole thing on President Bush and his “misguided” war in Iraq. In other words, they continue to blame America first.
Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week, Congressman Jack Murtha was asked about the terrorist plot. His response:
Our presence in Iraq, our occupation of Iraq, gives (the terrorists) the inspiration…I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people to take on the United States…Our presence in Iraq is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. So this is the problem that we have.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did have the presence of mind to mention to the congressman that, “We did have 9-11 before we went into Iraq” (not bad for a former Clinton advisor). Murtha’s response was, “Yeah, we had 9-11, but that came from Afghanistan.” So that means that a terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan can be blamed on the terrorists, but a terrorist plot that came from Al-Qaeda in Iraq is obviously the fault of George Bush. Does anybody other than me find that reasoning absolutely ludicrous?
Democrats act as if Muslim extremists in Iraq had a deep love and appreciation for the United States before we ever went to war. I hate to break it to them, but we were hated just as ferociously when Bill Clinton was president as we are now with President Bush. And these guys who plotted this latest threat weren’t even in Iraq; they were operating right here in the land of the free.
Speaking of that, shouldn’t this be a signal to President Bush that his support of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants is not a great idea? Do we really want to give provisional legal status to a group of people who are, by definition, here illegally? Should it be the policy of this great country to reward those who break our laws? Will that ever be a good idea? Sorry to keep asking questions; inquiring minds want to know. But, I digress.
Senator Barack Obama was asked about the terrorist plot during Sunday night’s Democratic debate. His response:
But the fact of the matter is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions. Primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battle to deal with Al-Qaeda, but in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq.
Once again, the liberals are convinced that fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq were at one time totally at peace with America’s place in the world. They would have us believe that it was only after Operation Iraqi Freedom that terrorists were recruited and trained in Iraq. Murtha, Obama and other liberals believe we should be ashamed of ourselves for defending freedom and trying to prevent more terrorist attacks on our soil. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sought to charge President Bush with treason for having instigated this latest terrorist plot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats first need to understand that you can’t deal with a problem by pretending that it doesn’t exist. The city where I live, for instance, has seen a steady increase in violent crime in recent years. Should our law enforcement officials work aggressively to arrest the offenders and prevent more offenses in the future, or should they take a hands-off approach for fear that we might incite more violence if we make the criminals mad? For me, that’s a no-brainer. But then again, I’m not a liberal, so my brain works a little bit differently.
Another thing the Democrats need to do is stop playing partisan politics with national security. When there is genuinely good news in relation to the fight against terrorism, it shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to attack the president and Republicans. Isn’t this at least one issue where we can all stand side-by-side, knowing that we are united for the defense of our country in spite of other areas where we vehemently disagree? It should be, and I believe it can be. But as long as winning elections is the most important thing, the sad truth is that it never will be.
Last week’s news about a thwarted terrorist plot to blow up the jet fuel pipeline at JFK airport should have been acknowledged by Democrats as a victory in the war on terror. That, however, might make George Bush look good, which in turn might make Republicans look good, which in turn might lead to the Democrats losing next year’s presidential election. So the only recourse they have is to blame the whole thing on President Bush and his “misguided” war in Iraq. In other words, they continue to blame America first.
Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week, Congressman Jack Murtha was asked about the terrorist plot. His response:
Our presence in Iraq, our occupation of Iraq, gives (the terrorists) the inspiration…I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people to take on the United States…Our presence in Iraq is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world. So this is the problem that we have.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did have the presence of mind to mention to the congressman that, “We did have 9-11 before we went into Iraq” (not bad for a former Clinton advisor). Murtha’s response was, “Yeah, we had 9-11, but that came from Afghanistan.” So that means that a terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan can be blamed on the terrorists, but a terrorist plot that came from Al-Qaeda in Iraq is obviously the fault of George Bush. Does anybody other than me find that reasoning absolutely ludicrous?
Democrats act as if Muslim extremists in Iraq had a deep love and appreciation for the United States before we ever went to war. I hate to break it to them, but we were hated just as ferociously when Bill Clinton was president as we are now with President Bush. And these guys who plotted this latest threat weren’t even in Iraq; they were operating right here in the land of the free.
Speaking of that, shouldn’t this be a signal to President Bush that his support of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants is not a great idea? Do we really want to give provisional legal status to a group of people who are, by definition, here illegally? Should it be the policy of this great country to reward those who break our laws? Will that ever be a good idea? Sorry to keep asking questions; inquiring minds want to know. But, I digress.
Senator Barack Obama was asked about the terrorist plot during Sunday night’s Democratic debate. His response:
But the fact of the matter is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions. Primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battle to deal with Al-Qaeda, but in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq.
Once again, the liberals are convinced that fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq were at one time totally at peace with America’s place in the world. They would have us believe that it was only after Operation Iraqi Freedom that terrorists were recruited and trained in Iraq. Murtha, Obama and other liberals believe we should be ashamed of ourselves for defending freedom and trying to prevent more terrorist attacks on our soil. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sought to charge President Bush with treason for having instigated this latest terrorist plot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats first need to understand that you can’t deal with a problem by pretending that it doesn’t exist. The city where I live, for instance, has seen a steady increase in violent crime in recent years. Should our law enforcement officials work aggressively to arrest the offenders and prevent more offenses in the future, or should they take a hands-off approach for fear that we might incite more violence if we make the criminals mad? For me, that’s a no-brainer. But then again, I’m not a liberal, so my brain works a little bit differently.
Another thing the Democrats need to do is stop playing partisan politics with national security. When there is genuinely good news in relation to the fight against terrorism, it shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to attack the president and Republicans. Isn’t this at least one issue where we can all stand side-by-side, knowing that we are united for the defense of our country in spite of other areas where we vehemently disagree? It should be, and I believe it can be. But as long as winning elections is the most important thing, the sad truth is that it never will be.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A Novel Idea For Supporting The Troops
It has always been a moving experience. I’ve been fortunate enough in my lifetime to see it firsthand on several different occasions. But for whatever reason, the last time I witnessed it, emotion took over and I couldn’t hold back the tears. What I’m referring to is the changing of the guard at The Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.
Watching these elite sentinels going about their duty, I was reminded of what a privilege it is to live in the United States of America. And I became overwhelmed as I thought of the supreme sacrifice that many have made so that I might live free. As I walked away that day, I voiced a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing my gratitude to God for giving me the blessing of being born an American.
Yesterday we celebrated Memorial Day in our country. I would be lying if I told you I spent the whole day honoring those who gave their lives for this country. But I did pause for a few moments yesterday to remember and reflect. To me, that’s what Memorial Day is all about. Not everybody, apparently, shares my feelings.
For presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards, Memorial Day is a time to protest an unpopular war in Iraq. He seems to think that a public demonstration against the war on Memorial Day is appropriate, but only after first “taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen” (as if that will make it ok). Mr. Edwards believes that an anti-war rally on this sacred holiday is the best way, in his words, “to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.”
How ironic that he wants to honor the troops serving today, when he has personally expressed his support for a bill that would cut the funding to those in harm’s way. That’s essentially what the Congress tried to do by sending a bill to the President linking money for the troops with a timetable to get out of Iraq. And isn’t that a great idea? Publish our plans on how we’re going to retreat for the whole world to see. I’m no expert on military strategy, but that doesn’t sound like a course of action that will support the troops. And by passing a war-spending bill that the President had no choice but to veto, the Congress was, indirectly, cutting off funding for our servicemen and women.
Yet John Edwards actually had the nerve to claim that President Bush was, and I quote, “vetoing Congress's bill that would support the troops.” He’s got to be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. Imagine if every divorced father who pays child support in America accepted this reasoning: “I’m going to support my child by withdrawing all funding.” And you think we have a problem with dead-beat dads now, just wait until all the divorced fathers adopt the Edwards plan. Some may even use it as a defense in court:
Your honor, I’m supporting my children in the same way that John Edwards and the Democrats in Congress are supporting the troops. I’m giving them nothing!
It’s not hard to see the inherent problems with the ideas of John Edwards and other like-minded Democrats. I’m sure they have the best of intentions, but faulty plans usually lead to disaster despite the loftiest objectives.
And now that Memorial Day has come and gone, what was the result of Mr. Edwards' call for anti-war protests? Three of today's headlines immediately jump out at me:
-Vandals deface veterans’ graves with swastikas in Washington state.
-Teens arrested for tossing eggs at color guard in Massachusetts.
-Vandals in Philadelphia spray swastikas on American Legion building.
I’m not saying that these three incidents were directly related to John Edwards’ call for protests. In fact, they probably weren’t. But when Mr. Edwards suggests that Memorial Day is an appropriate time to demonstrate against public policy concerning American troops in harm’s way, he gives a certain legitimacy to those vandals (if only in their own minds) that they would not have had otherwise.
Mr. Edwards, you were wrong. You should apologize to our nation, to our soldiers in harm’s way, and to all the families who have lost loved ones that were fighting for our freedom.
There are 365 days in a year. Whether you’re for the war or against it, Memorial Day should be about those who’ve given their lives for this country. Pick out another day from the 364 remaining and protest on that date, but leave the last Monday in May alone.
Watching these elite sentinels going about their duty, I was reminded of what a privilege it is to live in the United States of America. And I became overwhelmed as I thought of the supreme sacrifice that many have made so that I might live free. As I walked away that day, I voiced a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing my gratitude to God for giving me the blessing of being born an American.
Yesterday we celebrated Memorial Day in our country. I would be lying if I told you I spent the whole day honoring those who gave their lives for this country. But I did pause for a few moments yesterday to remember and reflect. To me, that’s what Memorial Day is all about. Not everybody, apparently, shares my feelings.
For presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards, Memorial Day is a time to protest an unpopular war in Iraq. He seems to think that a public demonstration against the war on Memorial Day is appropriate, but only after first “taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen” (as if that will make it ok). Mr. Edwards believes that an anti-war rally on this sacred holiday is the best way, in his words, “to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.”
How ironic that he wants to honor the troops serving today, when he has personally expressed his support for a bill that would cut the funding to those in harm’s way. That’s essentially what the Congress tried to do by sending a bill to the President linking money for the troops with a timetable to get out of Iraq. And isn’t that a great idea? Publish our plans on how we’re going to retreat for the whole world to see. I’m no expert on military strategy, but that doesn’t sound like a course of action that will support the troops. And by passing a war-spending bill that the President had no choice but to veto, the Congress was, indirectly, cutting off funding for our servicemen and women.
Yet John Edwards actually had the nerve to claim that President Bush was, and I quote, “vetoing Congress's bill that would support the troops.” He’s got to be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. Imagine if every divorced father who pays child support in America accepted this reasoning: “I’m going to support my child by withdrawing all funding.” And you think we have a problem with dead-beat dads now, just wait until all the divorced fathers adopt the Edwards plan. Some may even use it as a defense in court:
Your honor, I’m supporting my children in the same way that John Edwards and the Democrats in Congress are supporting the troops. I’m giving them nothing!
It’s not hard to see the inherent problems with the ideas of John Edwards and other like-minded Democrats. I’m sure they have the best of intentions, but faulty plans usually lead to disaster despite the loftiest objectives.
And now that Memorial Day has come and gone, what was the result of Mr. Edwards' call for anti-war protests? Three of today's headlines immediately jump out at me:
-Vandals deface veterans’ graves with swastikas in Washington state.
-Teens arrested for tossing eggs at color guard in Massachusetts.
-Vandals in Philadelphia spray swastikas on American Legion building.
I’m not saying that these three incidents were directly related to John Edwards’ call for protests. In fact, they probably weren’t. But when Mr. Edwards suggests that Memorial Day is an appropriate time to demonstrate against public policy concerning American troops in harm’s way, he gives a certain legitimacy to those vandals (if only in their own minds) that they would not have had otherwise.
Mr. Edwards, you were wrong. You should apologize to our nation, to our soldiers in harm’s way, and to all the families who have lost loved ones that were fighting for our freedom.
There are 365 days in a year. Whether you’re for the war or against it, Memorial Day should be about those who’ve given their lives for this country. Pick out another day from the 364 remaining and protest on that date, but leave the last Monday in May alone.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
A Tale Of Two Funerals
It was a little over a year ago. The occasion was the funeral for Coretta Scott King, the first lady of the American civil rights movement. Some 10,000 mourners gathered to remember her life and pay tribute to her legacy. What our nation deserved and her memory demanded was a memorial service conducted with dignity and respect. What it turned into, disappointingly, was a political skewering of President George W. Bush.
As our forty-third President sat on the platform, Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, took to the podium and said:
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.
Isn’t it amazing how Rev. Lowery managed to work in a dig at the President while still invoking the name of the deceased? Somebody please explain to me why, when a venerable leader like Coretta Scott King passes away, the first thing that comes to mind is, “Where are the WMD?”
Now before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an apologist for President Bush. I’ve supported him on many of his decisions, and been quite disappointed by more than a few of his others. The point I’m trying to make is this: where was the outrage from the left when this funeral turned into a political rally for the Democratic National Committee?
Some on the left chose to simply remain quiet rather than risk speaking out publicly against this classless display. Others couldn’t wait to applaud Rev. Lowery for using the pulpit as a platform to attack Bush. Representative Jan Schakowsky took the opportunity to write in her blog:
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a long time soldier in the civil rights movement and colleague of Dr. King, did what the movement has always done - speak truth to power, and was rewarded with several standing ovations. His poetic tribute to Mrs. King spoke of "weapons of misdirection...millions without health insurance, poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor."
I’m sorry congresswoman, but that wasn’t a poetic tribute. It was a deliberate politicizing of a memorial service that should have been handled with reverence. There should have been quick condemnation from the Democrats and left-leaning pundits, but it simply did not happen. And for that, they should be ashamed.
So why am I bringing this up now, some fifteen months later? Because today another funeral was held, this time for an icon of Christian conservatism: Dr. Jerry Falwell. If you can use your imagination for just a moment, let’s play the game of What If. What if Rev. Franklin Graham had walked to the pulpit today and said:
We know now that our former President lied about having relations with an intern. But Dr. Falwell knew, and we know that character counts when it comes to our political leaders.
Does anyone, conservative or liberal, believe that such a statement would be appropriate at a memorial service? I would be the first one to step forward and condemn a eulogy like that. And I’m sure my friends that lean to the left would shout their displeasure from the rooftops. I can hear it now:
These comments today by Rev. Graham are absolutely despicable. No funeral service should ever be turned into a political convention. Rev. Graham should apologize immediately for his outrageous actions.
Of course, we know that Franklin Graham would never stoop so low as to do what Rev. Lowery did at the King funeral. But we also know that for those on the left, there is no place off limits when it comes to spreading political propaganda. And depending on who’s doing the talking, there is a clear double standard.
As our forty-third President sat on the platform, Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, took to the podium and said:
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.
Isn’t it amazing how Rev. Lowery managed to work in a dig at the President while still invoking the name of the deceased? Somebody please explain to me why, when a venerable leader like Coretta Scott King passes away, the first thing that comes to mind is, “Where are the WMD?”
Now before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an apologist for President Bush. I’ve supported him on many of his decisions, and been quite disappointed by more than a few of his others. The point I’m trying to make is this: where was the outrage from the left when this funeral turned into a political rally for the Democratic National Committee?
Some on the left chose to simply remain quiet rather than risk speaking out publicly against this classless display. Others couldn’t wait to applaud Rev. Lowery for using the pulpit as a platform to attack Bush. Representative Jan Schakowsky took the opportunity to write in her blog:
Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a long time soldier in the civil rights movement and colleague of Dr. King, did what the movement has always done - speak truth to power, and was rewarded with several standing ovations. His poetic tribute to Mrs. King spoke of "weapons of misdirection...millions without health insurance, poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor."
I’m sorry congresswoman, but that wasn’t a poetic tribute. It was a deliberate politicizing of a memorial service that should have been handled with reverence. There should have been quick condemnation from the Democrats and left-leaning pundits, but it simply did not happen. And for that, they should be ashamed.
So why am I bringing this up now, some fifteen months later? Because today another funeral was held, this time for an icon of Christian conservatism: Dr. Jerry Falwell. If you can use your imagination for just a moment, let’s play the game of What If. What if Rev. Franklin Graham had walked to the pulpit today and said:
We know now that our former President lied about having relations with an intern. But Dr. Falwell knew, and we know that character counts when it comes to our political leaders.
Does anyone, conservative or liberal, believe that such a statement would be appropriate at a memorial service? I would be the first one to step forward and condemn a eulogy like that. And I’m sure my friends that lean to the left would shout their displeasure from the rooftops. I can hear it now:
These comments today by Rev. Graham are absolutely despicable. No funeral service should ever be turned into a political convention. Rev. Graham should apologize immediately for his outrageous actions.
Of course, we know that Franklin Graham would never stoop so low as to do what Rev. Lowery did at the King funeral. But we also know that for those on the left, there is no place off limits when it comes to spreading political propaganda. And depending on who’s doing the talking, there is a clear double standard.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Truth And Consequences
What happens when an unproven theory is mistaken for scientific fact? The unproven theory suddenly becomes dogma that all must accept or risk being called ignorant, ill-informed or just plain stupid. No, this isn’t another rant about man-made global warming, although the similarities are astounding. This is about Darwinism, which has become its own weird sort of religion in our world today.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come under fire recently for acknowledging that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Apparently, there are those who think that anyone who believes in creationism should be disqualified for the office of President. One blogger I read this week, referring to Huckabee, said:
What does it say about someone that they’ve managed to get to be 52 years old and be nearly completely ignorant of the foundations of biology?
Well, let’s see. First of all, the foundations of biology have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory that man evolved from the primeval slime into amino acids, then proteins, then a prehistoric virus, then a single-celled amoeba, then a shelled fish, then an invertebrate fish, then a vertebrate fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a bird, then a mammal, and finally a man. To suggest that this line of succession has anything to do with biological fact is absurd. It makes for some pretty interesting diagrams, but it is far from scientific. Once again, the parallels with global warming are mind-boggling.
Secondly, since we’re discussing the foundations of science, let’s consider physics. The second law of thermodynamics says everything runs inexorably from a state of order to disorder. In other words, things left to random chance always become more scattered and disarrayed. If I had a brand new car that I could park in the wilderness for 50 years, do you think it would end up in better shape or worse after being left alone for half a century? Let's face it: that car's not going to be ready for the showroom floor and probably won't even crank. The point is that, left to natural processes, things don't magically improve on their own.
Third, let’s consider the argument from logic. One of the basic principles of logic is that intelligent design implies a designer. If you ever visit Stone Mountain in Georgia, you’ll see the world’s largest mass of exposed granite. It is an impressive sight to witness this gargantuan gray peak rising above the green forests that surround it. Even more impressive, however, is what you’ll find on one side of the mountain: the images of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson hewn into the rock. Now does anyone really believe for one moment that these three Confederate heroes wound up on that granite rock as a result of wind erosion and the forces of nature? You can’t look at that memorial without realizing that there had to be a designer, an artist who planned it all out and made it happen. If that is true of a carving on an oversized granite boulder, how much more is it true of you?
You see, I refuse to believe that my life appeared here on earth simply by chance. To believe in evolution would mean that we are all just accidents, biding our time until our bodies become food for worms. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has summarized human life in this way:
We are because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species . . . has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a higher answer - but none exists.
That is one of the saddest things you'll ever read. If that’s true, then there is no God. And if there is no God, then there is no right or wrong. No wonder we’ve accepted things like moral relativism and abortion in our country. We’ve replaced morality with a “survival of the fittest” mindset. And why shouldn’t we. After all, if there’s no God, there’s obviously no heaven or hell. And isn’t that what most people are searching for in the new millennium? An anything goes mentality and a lifestyle that is free from consequences.
But if that’s the way you choose to live your life, you’d better make sure that you are 100% right. Eternity is long; so don’t be wrong.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come under fire recently for acknowledging that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Apparently, there are those who think that anyone who believes in creationism should be disqualified for the office of President. One blogger I read this week, referring to Huckabee, said:
What does it say about someone that they’ve managed to get to be 52 years old and be nearly completely ignorant of the foundations of biology?
Well, let’s see. First of all, the foundations of biology have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory that man evolved from the primeval slime into amino acids, then proteins, then a prehistoric virus, then a single-celled amoeba, then a shelled fish, then an invertebrate fish, then a vertebrate fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a bird, then a mammal, and finally a man. To suggest that this line of succession has anything to do with biological fact is absurd. It makes for some pretty interesting diagrams, but it is far from scientific. Once again, the parallels with global warming are mind-boggling.
Secondly, since we’re discussing the foundations of science, let’s consider physics. The second law of thermodynamics says everything runs inexorably from a state of order to disorder. In other words, things left to random chance always become more scattered and disarrayed. If I had a brand new car that I could park in the wilderness for 50 years, do you think it would end up in better shape or worse after being left alone for half a century? Let's face it: that car's not going to be ready for the showroom floor and probably won't even crank. The point is that, left to natural processes, things don't magically improve on their own.
Third, let’s consider the argument from logic. One of the basic principles of logic is that intelligent design implies a designer. If you ever visit Stone Mountain in Georgia, you’ll see the world’s largest mass of exposed granite. It is an impressive sight to witness this gargantuan gray peak rising above the green forests that surround it. Even more impressive, however, is what you’ll find on one side of the mountain: the images of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson hewn into the rock. Now does anyone really believe for one moment that these three Confederate heroes wound up on that granite rock as a result of wind erosion and the forces of nature? You can’t look at that memorial without realizing that there had to be a designer, an artist who planned it all out and made it happen. If that is true of a carving on an oversized granite boulder, how much more is it true of you?
You see, I refuse to believe that my life appeared here on earth simply by chance. To believe in evolution would mean that we are all just accidents, biding our time until our bodies become food for worms. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has summarized human life in this way:
We are because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species . . . has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a higher answer - but none exists.
That is one of the saddest things you'll ever read. If that’s true, then there is no God. And if there is no God, then there is no right or wrong. No wonder we’ve accepted things like moral relativism and abortion in our country. We’ve replaced morality with a “survival of the fittest” mindset. And why shouldn’t we. After all, if there’s no God, there’s obviously no heaven or hell. And isn’t that what most people are searching for in the new millennium? An anything goes mentality and a lifestyle that is free from consequences.
But if that’s the way you choose to live your life, you’d better make sure that you are 100% right. Eternity is long; so don’t be wrong.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Something Old, Something New
It was only a matter of time. For years we were told that over-population was going to spell disaster for this planet, and that we were all headed for doomsday. Well, those predictions turned out to be just a wee bit overblown and somehow the earth has managed to survive. Now, however, environmental extremists have figured out a way to take their latest pet cause, global warming, and marry it to their past obsession of over-population. In so doing, they are trying to resurrect the outdated idea that human beings should put serious limits on procreation. OK, so it’s not a defunct practice in China, but do we really want to pattern ourselves after that red country?
Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?
Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.
What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.
Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)
One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.
I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.
But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.
With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.
Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?
Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.
What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.
Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)
One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.
I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.
But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.
With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Sky Is NOT Falling
I am not a scientist. I’m also not a climatologist or even a meteorologist. In fact, I’m not all that smart. My university years were spent at an institution with the initials J.S.U. The running joke on campus was that J.S.U. was short for “Just Show Up” (a reference to the perception that you didn’t have to be real smart or put forth much effort to receive a degree from this institution). Well, yours truly spent four years at “Just Show Up” University and I never graduated. Now in my defense, I blame this on a pesky requirement in the communications department that mandated four semesters of foreign language before one could wear the cap and gown. Unfortunately, I didn’t do so well in Spanish class. Muchas gracias Mrs. Suco!
So why do I list here, for the whole world to see, my less than stellar academic credentials? Because in spite of my obvious lack of intelligence and formal education, I am just as eminently qualified to speak on global warming as is our former Vice-President Al Gore. Mr. Gore, however, has been given a highly visible platform to spout his views on planetary climate change (as have those paragons of scientific truth Sheryl Crow and Laurie David). When a person like the former V.P. says the debate is over about the cause of global warming, it should be a clear indication that he is out in left field. Instead, Mr. Gore is rewarded with a fawning national media and an Academy Award.
The truth is that there is not a universal consensus in the scientific community concerning the cause of climate change. There does seem to be, however, near absolute agreement on this issue among the Hollywood elite and politicians that lean to the left. Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when great scientific minds like Leonardo DeCaprio and Madonna wax eloquent on the dangers of global warming.
What really gets under my skin is the hypocrisy of those who would take away my internal combustion engine. Al Gore, for example, suggests that we should conserve energy in our homes and carpool to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Gore, however, has a Tennessee home where he uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in an entire year. Oh yeah, and he jet sets around the globe in a private plane to spread his politically correct message of conserving fossil fuels.
I will give props to one celebrity who has taken a clear-cut step to help solve this planetary crisis known as global warming. Sheryl Crow has decided to limit herself to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit and she wants us all to do the same. She’s not just talking about saving the planet; she has figured out a way to stop climate change in its tracks (no pun intended). And why shouldn’t we take our cues on environmental solutions and bathroom etiquette from the one who brought us that ultra-intellectual song All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun? She’s obviously an expert on planetary climate patterns just like Al Gore. One word of caution though: if you meet Ms. Crow after one of her concerts, I would advise against a handshake. She seems to be more passionate about cleaning up the environment than she is about cleaning up herself.
One thing I’ve noticed about those sounding the alarm about global warming is that they are horrible planetists. Not a word you’re familiar with? Well, a planetist is to the planet what a racist is to race. While those who are against the Jews are known as anti-Semites, the environmental extremists are, for the most part, rabid anti-planetites. While the greenies are screaming about global warming here on earth, nobody’s trying to do anything to solve the problems on Mars. The polar ice caps on the red planet are melting at an alarming rate due to Martian warming. Why is no one on the environmental fringe trying to do away with the SUV’s on Mars? Does no one care that the Martians are destroying their planet just like we are destroying ours?
Oh, wait a minute. There are no Martians on Mars because there’s no life on Mars! But if there’s no life on Mars, who is it that is destroying the planet? They can’t even blame George W. Bush or Karl Rove for this one. Well, the left did blame Bush for Katrina, so that last statement may be a bit premature.
One article in Monday’s Times Online stated, “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.” You think? And why do they use the words “could be” when it is obvious that this is not something that’s up for debate. When it comes to Mars, it has to be natural phenomena. But for the environmental extremists, there’s no possible way the Earth could be warming up without us mean old humans having a hand in it. Good science and reasonable logic have taken a back seat to the politics of fear.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-environment. I love clean air and clean water just as much as the planetists do. But the answers to the planet’s problems are not going to be found by following Al Gore's advice or going to a Sheryl Crow concert. Actually, the problems our planet is facing are nothing new. The Bible tells us in Romans 8:22:
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (NKJV)
See, the planetary problems didn't begin with the internal combustion engine; they began with the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, all of creation has been out of kilter. The earth has been groaning, eagerly anticipating the day when it will be redeemed. We need to understand that we are not the ones who can or will save the planet. Romans 8:21 says:
Because the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (NKJV)
Translation: the only hope of salvation for the planet is the same hope that we have as fallen mankind. That hope is found only in Jesus Christ; for us as sinners and for the world. Just as we believers will one day be given a new body, there will also be a new heavens and a new earth.
Until then, we need to take care of this old earth without thinking that we have the power to destroy it or to save it. That is the height of arrogance.
So why do I list here, for the whole world to see, my less than stellar academic credentials? Because in spite of my obvious lack of intelligence and formal education, I am just as eminently qualified to speak on global warming as is our former Vice-President Al Gore. Mr. Gore, however, has been given a highly visible platform to spout his views on planetary climate change (as have those paragons of scientific truth Sheryl Crow and Laurie David). When a person like the former V.P. says the debate is over about the cause of global warming, it should be a clear indication that he is out in left field. Instead, Mr. Gore is rewarded with a fawning national media and an Academy Award.
The truth is that there is not a universal consensus in the scientific community concerning the cause of climate change. There does seem to be, however, near absolute agreement on this issue among the Hollywood elite and politicians that lean to the left. Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when great scientific minds like Leonardo DeCaprio and Madonna wax eloquent on the dangers of global warming.
What really gets under my skin is the hypocrisy of those who would take away my internal combustion engine. Al Gore, for example, suggests that we should conserve energy in our homes and carpool to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Gore, however, has a Tennessee home where he uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in an entire year. Oh yeah, and he jet sets around the globe in a private plane to spread his politically correct message of conserving fossil fuels.
I will give props to one celebrity who has taken a clear-cut step to help solve this planetary crisis known as global warming. Sheryl Crow has decided to limit herself to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit and she wants us all to do the same. She’s not just talking about saving the planet; she has figured out a way to stop climate change in its tracks (no pun intended). And why shouldn’t we take our cues on environmental solutions and bathroom etiquette from the one who brought us that ultra-intellectual song All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun? She’s obviously an expert on planetary climate patterns just like Al Gore. One word of caution though: if you meet Ms. Crow after one of her concerts, I would advise against a handshake. She seems to be more passionate about cleaning up the environment than she is about cleaning up herself.
One thing I’ve noticed about those sounding the alarm about global warming is that they are horrible planetists. Not a word you’re familiar with? Well, a planetist is to the planet what a racist is to race. While those who are against the Jews are known as anti-Semites, the environmental extremists are, for the most part, rabid anti-planetites. While the greenies are screaming about global warming here on earth, nobody’s trying to do anything to solve the problems on Mars. The polar ice caps on the red planet are melting at an alarming rate due to Martian warming. Why is no one on the environmental fringe trying to do away with the SUV’s on Mars? Does no one care that the Martians are destroying their planet just like we are destroying ours?
Oh, wait a minute. There are no Martians on Mars because there’s no life on Mars! But if there’s no life on Mars, who is it that is destroying the planet? They can’t even blame George W. Bush or Karl Rove for this one. Well, the left did blame Bush for Katrina, so that last statement may be a bit premature.
One article in Monday’s Times Online stated, “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.” You think? And why do they use the words “could be” when it is obvious that this is not something that’s up for debate. When it comes to Mars, it has to be natural phenomena. But for the environmental extremists, there’s no possible way the Earth could be warming up without us mean old humans having a hand in it. Good science and reasonable logic have taken a back seat to the politics of fear.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-environment. I love clean air and clean water just as much as the planetists do. But the answers to the planet’s problems are not going to be found by following Al Gore's advice or going to a Sheryl Crow concert. Actually, the problems our planet is facing are nothing new. The Bible tells us in Romans 8:22:
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (NKJV)
See, the planetary problems didn't begin with the internal combustion engine; they began with the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, all of creation has been out of kilter. The earth has been groaning, eagerly anticipating the day when it will be redeemed. We need to understand that we are not the ones who can or will save the planet. Romans 8:21 says:
Because the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (NKJV)
Translation: the only hope of salvation for the planet is the same hope that we have as fallen mankind. That hope is found only in Jesus Christ; for us as sinners and for the world. Just as we believers will one day be given a new body, there will also be a new heavens and a new earth.
Until then, we need to take care of this old earth without thinking that we have the power to destroy it or to save it. That is the height of arrogance.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Finally Some Good News
In the midst of the sad and tragic news from Virginia Tech last week, another news story that would have made major headlines any other time has hardly been noticed. This is the news that the Supreme Court of the United States has (finally) upheld a ban on partial birth abortion. This is long overdue, and a positive sign for those in the pro-life community who have been anxiously waiting to see how our two newest members of the court would vote on life issues. Roberts and Alito did not disappoint. Now if we could just see Roe v. Wade overturned, we would really have something to celebrate.
Actually, from a purely legal standpoint, even if you’re not pro-life, Roe v. Wade in itself is simply bad law. The Supreme Court should have never gotten involved with this issue and should have left it up to the individual states to decide. I’m sorry to inform those on the left, but the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a woman a right to an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to privacy as the Supreme Court has tried to interpret it in the past. If you think I’m making this up, just read the document for yourself. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea for four of our five Supreme Court Justices, as well. (Warning to all liberals: If you do read the Constitution for yourself, you may be shocked to find that there are lots of other things that you thought were in there that really aren’t. One example: a constitutional wall of separation between church and state. Sorry, it’s not there. Read it at your own risk.)
Getting back to last week’s ruling, let’s see how certain presidential candidates responded to the news:
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling…
-Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision.
A running theme in all three of their responses was that this ruling was detrimental to the health and well being of women in this country. Really? What about the health of the unborn child? Last time I checked, one person is always injured in an abortion. To put it more accurately, one person is always killed in an abortion. And of all the different ways an abortion can terminate the life of a baby, intact dilation and extraction is the most heinous.
Everyone, including those who support abortion rights, should abhor this gruesome procedure known descriptively as partial birth abortion. How anyone could support such a violent form of infanticide goes beyond my ability to comprehend. And the thought that there are people who support this practice that want to be President of the United States sends cold chills down my spine.
I’m not generally a one-issue voter, but if a person can support something like partial birth abortion, that tells me all I need to know about them as a candidate and as a person. In my mind, that individual has already forfeited any chance they ever had of receiving a vote from me.
What’s really sad about the abortion debate in this country is how it has become so politicized. Just take a look at a few well-known Democrats who were at one time pro-life and only changed their position after deciding to run for President:
-Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) wrote in 1984: Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote in a letter to a constituent in 1971: Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
-Rev. Jesse Jackson, in a letter to Congress in the 70’s, wrote: As a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants...in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join.
I should also point out that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore were both pro-life at one time before deciding to run for the presidency as Democrats. Can you say sell-outs? And by that I mean these people sold out their moral convictions for the chance to be President of the United States.
Hard as it is to believe, the pro-abortion organization known as Planned Parenthood was at one time pro-life. They considered abortion the killing of a baby. Don’t believe me? In their 1963 pamphlet Is Birth Control Abortion?, page one reads: Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life. Wonder how many people in that organization today would agree with that statement?
Let's face it: when the abortion issue for certain politicians quit being about life and started being about political gain, it was a dark day for the unborn in this country. Let’s hope last week’s Supreme Court ruling will start to turn the tide in favor of what is morally right rather than what is politically expedient.
President Bush has had to deal with a myriad of tough problems during the past six years, and he’s no doubt had his share of mistakes and missteps that have angered both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. His lasting legacy, however, may not be an unpopular war in Iraq or his dubious policies concerning illegal immigrants and border control. His lasting legacy may just be the contribution he’s made to the pro-life cause by his nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States.
And this new-look court will hopefully have an influence far beyond the pro-life movement. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Supreme Court revert back to being the branch of our government that interprets the law instead of writing it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the way the Constitution intended for it to be?
Actually, from a purely legal standpoint, even if you’re not pro-life, Roe v. Wade in itself is simply bad law. The Supreme Court should have never gotten involved with this issue and should have left it up to the individual states to decide. I’m sorry to inform those on the left, but the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a woman a right to an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to privacy as the Supreme Court has tried to interpret it in the past. If you think I’m making this up, just read the document for yourself. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea for four of our five Supreme Court Justices, as well. (Warning to all liberals: If you do read the Constitution for yourself, you may be shocked to find that there are lots of other things that you thought were in there that really aren’t. One example: a constitutional wall of separation between church and state. Sorry, it’s not there. Read it at your own risk.)
Getting back to last week’s ruling, let’s see how certain presidential candidates responded to the news:
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling…
-Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision.
A running theme in all three of their responses was that this ruling was detrimental to the health and well being of women in this country. Really? What about the health of the unborn child? Last time I checked, one person is always injured in an abortion. To put it more accurately, one person is always killed in an abortion. And of all the different ways an abortion can terminate the life of a baby, intact dilation and extraction is the most heinous.
Everyone, including those who support abortion rights, should abhor this gruesome procedure known descriptively as partial birth abortion. How anyone could support such a violent form of infanticide goes beyond my ability to comprehend. And the thought that there are people who support this practice that want to be President of the United States sends cold chills down my spine.
I’m not generally a one-issue voter, but if a person can support something like partial birth abortion, that tells me all I need to know about them as a candidate and as a person. In my mind, that individual has already forfeited any chance they ever had of receiving a vote from me.
What’s really sad about the abortion debate in this country is how it has become so politicized. Just take a look at a few well-known Democrats who were at one time pro-life and only changed their position after deciding to run for President:
-Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) wrote in 1984: Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote in a letter to a constituent in 1971: Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
-Rev. Jesse Jackson, in a letter to Congress in the 70’s, wrote: As a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants...in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join.
I should also point out that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore were both pro-life at one time before deciding to run for the presidency as Democrats. Can you say sell-outs? And by that I mean these people sold out their moral convictions for the chance to be President of the United States.
Hard as it is to believe, the pro-abortion organization known as Planned Parenthood was at one time pro-life. They considered abortion the killing of a baby. Don’t believe me? In their 1963 pamphlet Is Birth Control Abortion?, page one reads: Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life. Wonder how many people in that organization today would agree with that statement?
Let's face it: when the abortion issue for certain politicians quit being about life and started being about political gain, it was a dark day for the unborn in this country. Let’s hope last week’s Supreme Court ruling will start to turn the tide in favor of what is morally right rather than what is politically expedient.
President Bush has had to deal with a myriad of tough problems during the past six years, and he’s no doubt had his share of mistakes and missteps that have angered both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. His lasting legacy, however, may not be an unpopular war in Iraq or his dubious policies concerning illegal immigrants and border control. His lasting legacy may just be the contribution he’s made to the pro-life cause by his nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States.
And this new-look court will hopefully have an influence far beyond the pro-life movement. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Supreme Court revert back to being the branch of our government that interprets the law instead of writing it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the way the Constitution intended for it to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)