The following is Dr. Dobson's October newsletter in its entirety.

Dear Friends,

Can you feel the tension in the air? The nation — and indeed, the world — is holding its collective breath as the final days of the presidential campaign wind down and the candidates engage in one last round of electioneering and debating. By this time next month, we'll know whether Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated in January as the 44th President of the United States.

Considering the stark differences between the two presidential candidates and the critical issues that are hanging in the balance, it's not difficult to understand why Campaign 2008 has been such a spirited affair. I'd like to take a few moments to consider what is at stake in this year's election, particularly for those of us who embrace a biblical worldview. Please understand that I will share these thoughts under the umbrella of Focus on the Family Action™, which has supported the preparation and distribution of this letter. Focus Action is, in turn, supported by contributions from those who do not receive tax deductible receipts for them. Thanks so much to you who made it possible.

Let's start with the need to elect a pro-family, pro-life President. The importance of this objective cannot be overstated. Between 2009 and 2012, there will likely be two or more opportunities for the President to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court. Some court watchers say there could be as many as four resignations. That alone should give us serious pause as we consider for whom to cast our votes. In the months ahead, the Supreme Court will likely hand down rulings that will impact America for generations to come. We need a President who will nominate conservative, strict-constructionist judges to the Court. If that doesn't happen, the highest court in the land could become stackedóeven more than it already isówith justices who will endeavor to legislate from the bench and impose a liberal agenda on the nation. It will likely affect the definition of marriage, religious freedom, and the protection (or lack thereof) of life in the womb.

It's probably obvious which of the two major party candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview. While I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency. This is not because I am beholden to the Senator from Arizona or to the Republican Party. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with my views knows that I have agonized at times during this election process, and have been strongly critical of Senator McCain and the Republican Party on numerous occasions. My concern is for the biblical and moral values that I and millions of Americans hold dear. I will gladly support politicians of any stripe who are willing to defend the sanctity of human life, support the institution of traditional marriage, protect the country from terrorism and advance the cause of religious liberty. While certainly not perfect, the 2008 Republican platform comes closest to embracing those ideals by a wide margin.

In recent weeks, I have received some measure of criticism from those who feel that my "change of heart" toward John McCain is unwarranted. I understand those views and concede that the Senator continues to embrace positions that concern me. I don't apologize, however, for reevaluating our options in this election year. John Maynard Keynes, whose views I have disagreed with strongly, said this about reversing course: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"¹ In this instance, Keynes' perspective is correct. Every thinking person will eventually have reason to change his or her mind as circumstances evolve, as they have done during this long political ordeal.

There are four primary — and I believe compelling — reasons why I now view the McCain presidential candidacy favorably:

1. During the "Saddleback Forum" on Aug. 16, Sens. Obama and McCain fielded questions from the Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren. Senator McCain gave very solid and encouraging answers to questions about the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, whereas Senator Obama came down at the other end of the argument.

   You will recall the following interchange during the forum:

   Pastor Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

   Senator Obama: "...Answering that question with specificity, you know, is, uh, is, above my pay grade."²

   With all due respect, Senator, if this question is above your pay grade, then so is the job attached to it.

2. The Republican Partyís 2008 national platform is a remarkably conservative document.³ Indeed, it is the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the party, surpassing even the pro-life advances of the Reagan years. It was approved and sanctioned by the McCain campaign.
3. Senator McCain selected an astonishingly strong pro-life, pro-family running mate in Governor Sarah Palin. Although he could have embraced a liberal Vice Presidential nominee, such as Senator Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, he made the bold decision to join forces with a VP pick whose views reflect those of the party's conservative base. I'll discuss Governor Palin's candidacy in greater detail in a moment.
4. The longer the campaign continues, the more concerned I have become with Barack Obama's liberal views. Certainly, he is an attractive and very charismatic candidate who has embarked on a campaign of historical proportions. However, the majority of his policies represent the antithesis of principles I hold dear. Senator Obama's record is more liberal than that of any other Democrat in the Senate⁴ — and that's saying something! For example, when he was a state senator in Illinois, he voted four times in three years against legislation that would have saved the lives of babies that managed to survive the abortion process.⁵ The U.S. Senate subsequently passed similar legislation called The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by unanimous consent.⁶ (Obama was not a U.S. Senator at the time.) State Senator Obama was chairman of the committee that opposed this protection of babies, and in 2001 and 2002 was the only legislator who rose to argue against the Illinois Born Alive Act.⁷ That is an undeniable fact!

My good friend, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum published a scathing analysis of Senator Obama's pro-abortion record earlier this year. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:

In March 2001, [Senator] Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."⁸ So according to [Senator] Obama, "they", (babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns,) should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.⁹

To further underscore Senator Obama's radical devotion to abortion rights, he has promised that "the first thing I'd do as president" would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.¹⁰ The FOCA is a devastating piece of legislation that would overturn nearly every local, state, and federal anti-abortion law passed in the last 40 years.¹¹ In fact, it's so broadly written that legal analysts suggest the bill may prevent institutions and physicians from refusing to provide abortion services by invoking the conscience clause.

Earlier this year, while talking about sex education and abortion, the Senator said the following: "I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."¹² In other words, a pre-born baby is viewed as a form of punishment, and can therefore be murdered in the name of convenience.

It is a matter of historic significance that Barack Obama has become the first African-American to capture the nomination of a major political party for the office of President of the United States. I applaud that remarkable accomplishment. Nevertheless, I cannot support his candidacy because the positions he holds on moral, social and family issues place him at the extreme left of the political spectrum. What the Senator believes and the policies he would seek to implement are on a collision course with the biblical principles and beliefs I have fought to defend for more than 35 years.

Turning the corner, the significance of Governor Palin to the 2008 presidential race is also worthy of further consideration. Here is a woman who is a deeply committed Christian, and who is pro-life not only with regard to her policies, but in her personal life. She and her husband welcomed their latest child, Trig, into the world even though he was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb. Approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted,¹³ but Governor Palin carried her precious child to term and now loves and cares for him despite the challenges associated with a special needs child. Similarly, her teenage daughter, Bristol, who became pregnant out of wedlock, could have bowed to cultural pressure to seek an abortion. Instead, she and the father plan to get married and raise their child together. Governor Palin has been married for 20 years, and by all accounts, she is a portrait of Christian motherhood and womanhood.

As for Governor Palin's qualifications to be Vice President of the United States and to assume the mantle of President, should that ever become necessary, she is much better suited for the job than the talking heads on the liberal Left would have you believe. She came out of nowhere to win the Alaskan gubernatorial race against a powerful incumbent. While in office, she bravely fought widespread corruption — including that within her own party — in the face of great opposition. Govenor Palin's critics suggest that her experience as mayor of a "small town" is somehow a liability, but it is an asset. In fact, her time as Mayor of Wasilla and then as Governor of Alaska gives her a greater degree of executive experience than Senator Barack Obama can claim. Her qualifications to be Vice President, I would submit, exceed those of Senator Barack Obama, who spent only 143 working days in the U.S. Senate prior to announcing his run for President.¹⁴ He authored no significant legislation during that time.

I'm sure you have heard the shrill voices from the political Left decrying Mrs. Palin for any and every reason under the sun. They gloat over the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol and claim it as "evidence" that abstinence education, which Sarah Palin strongly supports, is somehow a sham. They criticize Governor Palin for daring to hold political office and run for Vice President while having a baby at home, even though the Left has for decades supported a woman's right to do just that. The attacks on Governor Palin and her family in recent weeks have been astonishingly unfair and mean-spirited. If she were a liberal Democrat, she would be praised and lauded for making the same decisions for which she is now being criticized. The double standard is obvious.

Governor Palin's decision to run for Vice President while raising a baby with special needs has given pause to some conservative voices as well. Some have even questioned my enthusiasm over Governor Palin's candidacy in light of these circumstances. It's important to note that although I have often said stay-at-home moms are vitally important to raising the next generation, I have never suggested that it is wrong for mothers to work outside the home. Indeed, Focus on the Family® has hired thousands of mothers over the years. I have said, however, that if a mother is going to enter the workplace, she and her husband must first find a way to meet the needs of their children. Sarah Palin appears to have done that. Todd, her husband, is actively involved in the raising of their children, and it seems obvious that Sarah will continue to be a positive force in her children's lives even as she carries out her duties in the political arena. Regardless of your political views, may I suggest that the Palins need our prayers, not our disdain, at this critical moment in our nation's history.

Senator Obama's selection of fellow liberal Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.) is also extremely revealing. While the National Journal ranked Obama the most liberal Senator last year, Senator Biden was ranked 3rd on their list — just ahead of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist.¹⁵ While the Senator of 36 years from Delaware stands in blatant opposition to the pro-family movement, many of you will remember him from his vociferous opposition to several of our finer Supreme Court justices, namely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas.

Returning to our theme, America's future seems to hang in the balance at this time. Our next President will have a dramatic impact on countless legislative issues. Since being relegated to minority status in 2006, Senate Republicans have skillfully used the rules of parliamentary procedure to frustrate many of the Democrats' attempts to pass bad legislation. To this point, that effort has almost always been backed by a President who is willing to use the veto pen when necessary. The threat of President Bush's veto on hate crimes legislation and issues regarding the sanctity of life have kept a Democrat-controlled Congress from implementing its liberal agenda. Will our next President stand up to Congress in the same manner, or will he side with them, thereby giving the Democrats free reign to impose their liberal values on America?

It is likely, say the pundits, that both the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress will still be controlled by Democrats. If that party also takes the White House, a wave of anti-family, pro-homosexual legislation is almost guaranteed to pass in 2009. The bills put forward and advanced this year by Democrats reveal where they want to take the country. For example, they inserted hate crimes language into the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, but were forced to remove it in conference, again under the threat of veto.¹⁶ While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted for a bill authorizing "comprehensive" sex education beginning in kindergarten. Defenders have attempted to downplay its significance, citing the fact that it called for the content to be "age appropriate" and "medically accurate" — dubious and subjective qualifiers given the sensitive nature of the topic and innocence of the audience!¹⁷ (When criticized for supporting this legislation, the Senator was dismissive and said proudly, I quote, "It's the right thing to do."¹⁸)

Large portions of the agenda promoted by homosexual activists will also be enacted. The implications for a federal hate crimes law are clear. People speaking against homosexuality have already been prosecuted under hate crimes laws both in the United States and abroad. If a federal hate crimes law passes, there will be little to prevent the government from endeavoring to control and curtail religious speech, especially from the pulpit. It is entirely possible that a pastor could be charged with inducing a federal hate crime simply by preaching from one of the many biblical passages that address homosexuality.

Congressional Democrats will also seek to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, meaning businesses will be forced to accept and condone homosexuality — and possibly transgenderism — in making employment decisions. Further, business owners, including religious businesses, will not be able to make hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said, "I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepherd Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act."¹⁹

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the tax and spend policies Senator Obama will impose on the American people if he is elected, especially in light of the current financial crisis. This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy, yet, he has proposed enormous new federal programs and entitlements that will cost multiple billions of dollars. These initiatives cannot be effected without huge increases in taxation on businesses, which will be passed on to the public and to individual families. This will almost certainly require a return of the odious marriage penalty tax that plagued families for 32 years!

The races for the White House and the Congress are hardly the only matters worthy of concern in this election cycle. At the state and local levels, numerous policies and pieces of legislation are being put to a vote, and many of them are directly related to family and moral issues. For example, the definition of marriage is on the ballot in Arizona (Proposition 102), California (Proposition 8) and Florida (Amendment 2). Voters in Colorado will be given the opportunity to expand the definition of "personhood" to include all human beings from the moment of fertilization (Amendment 48). In South Dakota, voters will be asked to ban all abortions except those involving cases of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life or physical health of the mother (Measure 11). Michigan is considering whether to legalize embryonic stem cell research, which would result in the killing of tiny human beings. In California, voters will also get the chance to decide whether minor girls should be required to give 48 hoursí notice to a parent or adult relative before having an abortion (Proposition 4). Arkansas voters will decide whether to prevent couples living together out of wedlock — heterosexual or homosexual — from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

These are just a few of the important issues that, depending on which state you live in, will be on the ballot next month. I implore you to spend the few days remaining before the election researching the various amendments, ballot measures, and local and national candidates. Then, exercise your responsibility before God to vote on or before Nov 4. Please, let your voices be heard. For more information, visit Focus on the Family Actionís Web site at focusaction.org.

Regardless of your political views, I want to urge Christians everywhere to be in prayer about this election. There are many scriptural references wherein King David "inquired of God" when he was faced by troubling circumstances (1 Samuel 23:2,4; 30:8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19,23). It is time for Christians everywhere to turn to Him for guidance and wisdom. Find some time to be still and listen to what He wants to tell you. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, led by my wonderful wife, Shirley, has embarked on a national campaign entitled "Pray for Election Day." All around the country, individuals and groups are being encouraged to gather every Thursday leading up to Nov. 4 between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. Spend time with the Lord, asking Him to guide and direct those privileged to cast a ballot. If you are able, I would also encourage you to fast and pray immed"ately before the election. After all, it was the Reverend Billy Graham who once said that ìTo get nations back on their feet, we must first get down on our knees."²⁰ Amen, Dr. Graham.

This election is about the future of the nation, but it will also go a long way toward determining the culture your children and grandchildren will come to know. I know you will vote with your children and your children's children in mind. That certainly puts the election in a different light, doesn't it?

You know my heart on these issues, and I hope you understand that I am less concerned with politicians and political parties than I am with the timeless biblical principles that those parties have the power to either strengthen or damage. No candidate is perfect, whether in this election or any other. Please don't make your decisions lightly. There is simply too much at stake. May God grant each of us wisdom as Nov. 4 approaches.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. Since I began researching and writing this letter, the economic meltdown on Wall Street and congressional reaction to it has occurred. These are, indeed, difficult times for American families and businesses. Thank you for continuing to support this ministry, even though in many cases it has required sacrificial giving. You are helping to keep us afloat during this financial crisis, and we appreciate your contribution and prayers more than I can tell you.

Please share this with your friends and family.

This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family Action.

---

ENDNOTES

¹ Louis Uchitelle, "2 Mavericks in Economics Awarded Nobel Prize," The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2004, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/econ001/pdfs/nobel2004.pdf (Sept. 29, 2008).
Also: Alfred L. Malabre, Lost Prophets: An Insider's History of the Modern Economists (1994), p. 220. (Responding to criticism when changing monetary policy in the midst of the Great Depression.)

² Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, CNN Transcript, Aug. 16, 2008. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html (Sept. 29, 2008).

³ Republican National Committee, 2008 Republican Platform, gop.com/2008Platform/ (Sept. 28, 2008).

⁴ "National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings," National Journal Group Inc., 2008, nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm (Sept. 29, 2008).

⁵ bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (September 2008).

⁶ frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7084&position=all (Sept. 29, 2008).

⁷ bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (Sept. 30, 2008).

⁸ "Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act," Illinois Federation For Right to Life Daily News online, April 3, 2008, ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080403/1/ (Sept. 29, 2008).

⁹ Rick Santorum, "The Elephant in the Room: A Harsh Ideologue hidden by a feel-good image," The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 29, 2008, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/rick_santorum/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html (Sept. 28, 2008).

¹⁰ youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹¹ aul.org/FOCA (Sept. 29, 2008)

¹² "Ballot Bowl 2008: More Campaign Happenings," CNN Transcripts, March 29, 2008, transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/bb.01.html (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹³ Patricia E. Bauer, "What's Lost in Prenatal Testing: Why Encourage Testing for Down Syndrome," Jan. 14, 2007, Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201954.html

¹⁴ "Days in Session Calendars," Thomas, The Library of Congress, thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/ (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹⁵ National Journal online, 2008, Ibid.

¹⁶ Paul Kane, "Hill Negotiators Drop Hate-Crime Provision," Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2007, washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602453.html (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹⁷ Byron York, "On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right," National Review Online, Sept. 16, 2008, article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY= (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹⁸ "Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: 'It's the Right Thing to Do,'" Free Republic online, Sept. 10, 2008, freerepublic.com/focus/news/2079415/posts (Sept. 29, 2008).

¹⁹ Michael Foust, "Obama: If elected I will use the bully pulpit for gay causes," Baptist Press, Feb. 28, 2008, bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27510 (Sept. 29, 2008).

²⁰ Chuck Spinner, A Book of Prayers: To the Heavens from the Stars, (AuthorHouse: 2008), p. 225, excerpts online at: books.google.com/books?id=cfgSFGcC_n0C&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=%22To+get+nations+back+on+their+feet%22+and+%22get+down+on+our+knees%22+and+Graham&source=web&ots=HjqHwcw-mT&sig=OYFZAIONNVb_Ff138BCi2TmH1yo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result (Sept. 29, 2008).

Denver's Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput speaks for many Christians, not just those who are Catholic, when he wrote:

I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.

Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.

If you follow the link in the post below and watch the videos showing what Obama himself said on the topics of abortion, partial birth abortion, and the care of children that survived an abortion, you will see that Obama is on the far left fringe of even most who call themselves "pro-choice".

HT: Hugh Hewitt

One bit of actual good news is this report on a 30 year old church run affordable housing program that actually works and has not resulted in the foreclosures that are behind our current financial crisis.

Many affordable housing programs and their proponents are to blame for this mess, including ACORN.

However, there's one notable example of an affordable housing program that has avoided the foreclosure fate thus far.

Read the whole article!

Newt Gingrich delivers a powerful history lesson in this video clip, and in the process shows how much of an idiot Charlie Gibson is.

George Santayana said:

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

May we learn.

HT GatewayPundit

La Shawn Barber tells the story today of Gianna Jessen:

Jessen’s teenage mother attempted to kill her via a saline solution procedure when she was seven and a half months pregnant. During this despicable procedure, a so-called doctor injects saline into the woman’s stomach, and the solution poisons the baby as he swallows and burns his skin. The baby dies, and the mother goes into labor, delivering a dead baby. ...

Jessen miraculously survived but suffered injuries as a result of the abortion attempt. She developed cerebral palsy. Jessen’s mother put her up for adoption, which she should have done in the first place instead of trying to kill her. Today, Jessen is a Christian and pro-life advocate who has testified before the U.S. Congress and the British House of Commons. Since 2005, she’s run in two marathons.

 

I have posted before here and here about Obama's votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  As Obama said himself when denying he had done what we have multiple official proofs (including an audio recording) he had done, "It defies common sense and it defies imagination ..."  Of course he was speaking of those who were telling the truth about his actions, not the evil he had supported. 

I wonder what Obama would do if confronted by Gianna Jessen?  Andrew at Founding Bloggers writes:

I am not religious, or a card carrying member of the right. I am pro-choice! And this ad is absolutely devastating.

Gateway Pundit writes:

This is the defining ad of the campaign season...

How can any decent human being let alone anyone who calls themselves Christian watch this ad and read Gianna Jessen's story and still vote for Obama?

My friend Scott Ross (I engineered his radio program back in 1970 - 1971) sent the following email to me today:

Here is a video link of Sarah Palin (forwarded to me by a pastor I used to pastor) being prayed for in her home church in Alaska, and commissioning some young people to go do missionary work. She in turn is prayed for by her pastors. She says nothing political & all this preceded her being chosen by John McCain as his running mate for VP.

Those of you who know me know that I'm apolitical. I do not support or oppose any candidate for public office, and neither does The Christian Broadcasting Network. In no way would I have you construe this to be a political endorsement of any candidate.

After all as Jesus said, "My Kingdom (Democrat, Republican, Independent or otherwise) is NOT of this world."

Praying that God's will would be done in this election season.

Thanks,

Scott

Click here to see this 14 minute video (requires Flash Player).

 

The statement of the Palin family today:

“We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

Obama said a little while ago:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."

As Michelle Malkin said:

"One ticket sees this as a blessing. The other sees it as a curse. Could the core differences between the two be any starker?"

 

John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin (pronounced pale-in) of Alaska to be his running mate, and a lot of folk are asking "Sarah who?"  In an attempt to answer that question I have compiled the following bio.

Sarah Palin was born in Idaho and moved to Alaska as a child.

Known as "Sarah Barracuda" on the basketball court she helped her High School team win the state championship.  She also led the team in prayers before each game and is an evangelical Christian.

She married her high school sweetheart Todd Palin.  They have 5 children.  A strong Pro-Lifer, she refused to abort her youngest Trig, born while she was governor, when tests showed he had Downs Syndrome.  Her oldest Track, was named after the sport.  He has joined the Army and is about to be deployed to Iraq.

She was a "hockey Mom" who started in politics in the PTA then became mayor of Wasilla (her hometown near Anchorage).  She was Chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004, and the Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, but quit in 2004 in protest against ethical violations by the Alaska Republican Chairman, a member of the Commission.  She went on to defeat the Republican Governor of Alaska in the primary on an anti-corruption platform, and then won the general election.

As governor she cut state spending in Alaska, killed the "bridge to nowhere", and is a big proponent of developing Alaska's oil and gas resources to help the USA become energy independent.  She is not, however, willing to give the big oil companies what they want when she sees that as going against the interests of her state and nation.  Her husband Todd quit his 17 year position with BP to avoid even an appearance of conflict of interest, when that company became involved in negotiations with his wife's administration over a gas pipeline.

She is opposed to same sex marriage, but vetoed a bill blocking health benefits for the partners of gay public employees.

When she needed money to go to college she entered beauty contests.  She won Miss Wasilla and was runner up in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest.

She hunts, ice-fishes, and is a crack shot.  She is a Life Member of the NRA.

She has sued the Federal government to stop the listing of polar bears as an endangered species, and has a grizzly bear her father shot covering the sofa in her office.

Back when pot was legal in Alaska, she tried it.  "I can’t claim a Bill Clinton and say I never inhaled."

Todd Palin is a Union Steelworker who worked part of the year in the oil fields of Alaska for BP.  The rest of the year he runs a small commercial fishing operation.  He is part Yupik Eskimo and a 4 time winner of the 2000 mile Iron Dog snowmobile race. Last year he earned $93,000 total.

We know this because as governor Sarah Palin pushed through a strong financial disclosure law.  There is far more detail in the Palin's disclosure forms posted on the Internet, than there are in the Federal forms of our Senators and Representatives.

Ed Morrissey gives the background on how McCain came to select Sarah Palin.

Professor John Mark Reynolds writes about how Sarah Palin's experience is being undervalued.

Here is a side by side comparison of Sarah Palin and Barak Obama.

Here is the comparison in pdf form for easy printing.

Andrew C. McCarthy has a powerful article on Obama's support for Infanticide.

"There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings."

Read the whole thing!

Of course given Obama's obvious lack of concern for "the least of my brothers" why does it not surprise me that he has a half brother George Obama living in a hut in Nairobi, Kenya.  La Shawn Barber has the story.

"The Telegraph reports that George Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, subsists on less than a dollar a month in a hut in Nairobi, Kenya. He says he’s ashamed of his poverty and doesn’t tell people he’s related to America’s first black major party presumptive presidential nominee.

Assuming he didn’t know how his brother was living (benefit of the doubt, and all that), I wonder what Barack Obama will do to help him now, in light of his “we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these” lecture on Saturday at the Saddleback Civil Forum."

 

The more folk look at Obama's claim that National Right to Life was lying about his record, the worse that record looks.

Erik Erickson posts a transcript.

Joel Mowbray looks at who is telling the truth.

David Reinhard looks at the coverup.

Guy Benson puts Obama's position this way:

"Put crudely, once a woman chooses to abort, she’s entitled to a dead baby."

Change & Experience has the audio of Obama arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  Contrast that to his claim on CBN:

"He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview."

 

Scott Johnson of Power Line just crafted a great way of putting Obama's position on abortion:

"Those who have dug into his record in the Illinois senate, however, have found evidence that Obama is a devout believer in what might be called the sacramental or positive good view of abortion: nothing can be allowed to interfere with the unfettered exercise of the purported right, including the accident of an infant born alive."

This was in response to Obama's refusal to give a straight answer to Rick Warren of Saddleback Church on abortion.

Obama also claimed over the weekend on CBN that:

"anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview."

However according to the voting records from the Illinois state Senate, it was Obama who was lying on CBN and not the "anti-abortion groups".

Listen to Obama's remarks before Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the USA) to hear him deal with the subject of abortion in a forthright way that stands in direct contrast to his response to Rick Warren and his claims on CBN.

While addressing the folk at Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the USA) Obama said that his first act as President would be to overturn the ban on "partial birth abortion".  He said "On this issue, I will not yield."

La Shawn Barber comments:

    "In contrast, John McCain, a man I’ll reluctantly, with a strenuous effort, vote for in November, said this about partial birth abortion:

    'I will do everything in my power to ban that horrible procedure.'

    Now, it doesn’t matter to me whether McCain is a Christian or not. At the very least, he’s against so-called partial birth abortion, and that’s good enough for me. When it comes to unborn life, I will not yield. Any Obama supporter who claims to be a Christian ought to be ashamed."

I stand with La Shawn on this issue.

One of my all time favorite T shirts was made by my friends at Jesus People USA.  On the front it has a picture of Jesus, and the question "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?"  On the back it has a quote from C.S. Lewis "You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God."

La Shawn Barber quotes the entire passage from C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" the above is taken from and uses it as a springboard to examine Barak Obama's claim to be a Christian.  The key quote for me in her post is:

"Must our president be a Christian? In my opinion, no. I’d vote for an atheist, as long as he’s socially conservative. But I have BIG problems with someone who professes Christ and tries to appeal to Christians through “faith,” when his words and deeds indicate he is NOT a Christian."

Read the entire thing.

Real Clear Politics VP Watch points out today that Mike Huckabee is campaigning against Romney.  One of the more interesting observations they make is that "As Martin also notes, this is about presidential politics. If Romney is on the ticket and McCain wins, Romney is immediately heir apparent in 2012 or 2016, cutting out Huckabee."

Romney did extremely well here in Colorado, and as my post below shows, Colorado will be an extremely important state this election.

There are those who are against Romney because he is Mormon.  To them I can only point out that like Obama, the worst president in my lifetime, and maybe in history, was the self-proclaimed "christian" Jimmy Carter.  Carter never met a dictator he did not like, and never misses a chance to speak ill of the USA and Isreal.  Give me a President and Vice-President who love our country and support the right to life (even if less strongly than I might like) no matter what their religion, any day over a Carteresque candidate who is ashamed of our country and is OK with murdering children who survived abortions, but calls himself a "christian".

Power Line in a post today titled "Reverend Wright, who is that?" examines Obama's claim to be a Christian.  Some key quotes:

"It is undisputed that Obama was a non-believer until the latter half of the 1980s. After that, it is undisputed that Jeremiah Wright ... inspired Obama to join his church."

and

"Obama is distorting his religious views, either by pretending that he is a believer or by obscuring the radical nature of his religious beliefs.

"On its face, it seems audacious for someone who has been revealed as the follower of a fanatical, hate-mongering minister to be touting his religious faith."

Read the whole thing.

Dr. Earl Tilford writing in the Jewish Press has an excellent Op-Ed on the problem the "Christian Left" has with Israel.   The article is excellent and well worth your time to read.  One point he makes is that "Definitive truth, righteousness, and sinfulness are concepts alien to a Christian Left that denies the existence of evil (except as it applies to political and religious conservatives, “big oil,” and anyone who questions the left’s assumptions)."

This is similar to my often stated view that the Left does not believe in "evil" other than violence.  To many on the Left, all violence is EVIL and can never be justified.  This of course opposes all use of military force.  As Dr. Tilford writes "Further, Israel does something Christian leftists find incomprehensible: it uses military power to defend itself."  I believe things are even worse on the Left than he claims, as many of those on the Left believe that the mere fact that Israel has and uses military force PROVES Isreal to be evil.  This of course does not only apply to Israel, but also to the USA.  Much of the loathing of our country by those on the Left is due to the fact we have a powerful military and use it.

Of course the use of force by all the truly evil regimes and dictators around the world is excused by the Jimmy Carter Left who have never found a despotic government they did not favor.

HT to Free Republic for the link to the Op-Ed.

Family Research Council Action has just published links to many Voter Guides, including the Colorado Voter's Guide published by Rocky Mountain Family Council. RMFC has taken positions on many of the Amendments and Referendum on the ballot this November.

Christian Coalition of Colorado has just published their Voter Guide in conjunction with Christian Family Alliance of Colorado.  The Alliance has voter guides for all 7 Colorado Congressional races available here.  Christian Coalition of America the national organization, has a Voter Guide for Colorado Congressional Districts 4 and 7.

Focus on the Family has lots of general information of interest, and their political action wing Focus on the Family Action has lots of voting information.  Focus on the Family Action together with Family Research Council Action has just published their 2006 Voter Scorecard.  It shows the votes of all members of the US House and Senate on key issues, and rates the members.  Here in Colorado, Bob Beauprez who is running for Governor received a 100% rating, as did Marilyn Musgrave and Thomas Tancredo, both of whom are running for re-election.

The Colorado Catholic Conference has just published a Letter to the Faithful signed by Archbishop Chaput urging support for marriage, and in particular voting for Amendment 43 and against Referendum I.

Gun Owners of America has just released their 2006 Congressional Candidate Ratings Guide.

The Hill has just published commentary on the NJ Supreme Court decision demanding the NJ legislature pass Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.

The hate mail and phone calls from groups opposed to our great representative Marilyn Musgrave have been coming regularly.  One recent mailing tries to smear Rep Musgrave as corrupt, and to try to fool folk into believing they are a pro life group, call themselves "Coloradians for Life".  Another mailing tries to falsely paint Marilyn as a tax and spender who is running up our national debt.  This mailing comes from a leading "Gay Rights" group.  Since Marilyn Musgrave is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, they will do anything they can to defeat her.  They could care less about the debt, but to try to get conservatives to not vote they put out misleading stuff like this.

Be sure to vote Tuesday!

I will be adding to this post new sources as I find them.

Dean Barnett today posted 10 questions and answers about Israel and the situation in the mid-east.

"1) What would happen if all the Arab nations and their terrorist proxies like Hezbollah set down their arms and gave up their ambitions to drive Israel into the sea?

"There would be peace in the Middle East.

"2) What would happen if Israel disbanded the IDF, junked its nuclear weapons and declared to its neighbors that she would do anything to live in peace?

"Israel would be annihilated, millions of its citizens killed. The term genocide could be used to describe the ensuing holocaust, but since that term has been so hopelessly debased by American academics, a new term would have to be created like super-duper-mega genocide to really capture the nature of things."

That is about as good a short summary of the situation as any I have heard. Go read the whole post.

Charles Krauthammer identified Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

Dr. Sanity now exponds on Christianophobia or Christianity Derangement Syndrome (CDS) defined as "The excacerbation of acute and severe paranoia about the imminent imposition of a Christian theocracy in the U.S.; in an individual already suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome as a reaction to the very existence of (1) the Christian religion; (2) the practitioners of Christianity; and (3) symbols of Christianity anywhere within the culture; while simultaneously completely ignoring and dismissing any threat from the religious fanatics of Islam who repeatedly and clearly have stated that their goal is the imposition of a world-wide Islamic theocracy (or "Caliphate")".

While Dr Sanity has a point, I think those suffring from CDS have been around far longer than those suffering from BDS and that instead of CDS being a subset of BDS the other way around may be closer to the truth.

Two very recent examples of CDS are "The Da Vinci Code" and Time magazine's article by Andrew Sullivan "My Problem with Christianism". "The Da Vinci Code" of course is the virulently anti-Christian and anti-Catholic work of fiction which in book form clearly stated it was a novel, but Sony Pictures has refused to so label the movie version. "My Problem with Christianism" on the other hand is merely the latest example of someone who denies the doctrines of Christianity insisting loudly he is a better Christian than those who follow Christian doctrine.

For those who have questions about "The Da Vinci Code" a good place to start is Dr. Mark D. Roberts "The Da Vinci Opportunity".

For those with more basic questions about Christianity and Christian doctrine I recommend C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christainty".

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7

Today Power Line has a post titled "Sound and Unsound Minds". In in John Hinderaker links to Dr. Sanity, a psychiatrist/blogger on Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). In it he quotes Charles Krauthammer's definition of BDS "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

I was reminded of this yesterday by the comment I received on my Quote of the Day for 11/3/05. In the comment he took exception to the quote. I replied, but today would like to expand on part of my remark "This is the real problem for Christians in the Democrat party: How to justify supporting a party where the entire base is so far gone into the fever swamps of conspiracy, that they actually "believe a lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11) and honor someone like Michael Moore."

Lest someone think this characterization of the Democrat base and much of their leadership is unfair, here are some examples:

On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean (now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) was asked by a leftist interviewer on National Public Radio "Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?" Dean's reply "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?" Notice how Dean promotes this "theory" while trying to insulate himself from its obvious falsehood. This is the man who the Democrat party later chose as their national leader!

Disgraceful former President Jimmy Carter just claimed "President Bush's policies conflict with American values." This from someone who honored Michael Moore with a seat in the President's box at the Democratic National Convention, and accepted the Nobel Peace Prize after it was publicly stated that it was given to him as a way of attacking the USA.

Mary Mapes the former CBS producer of Dan Rather's infamous attack on President Bush based on fake documents, still pathetically tries to claim the story was true.

Rob Reiner the Hollywood actor, director and producer and leading Democrat spokesman claimed about President Bush "When I hear that on the weekend of the Super Bowl an Iraqi expatriate was explaining to him the difference between Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites, it makes me want to cry. I want to cry!" The only problem is other than Reiner's claim he heard "this anecdote on cable news or talk radio", there is no evidence that this is anything other than another example of BDS made up in Reiner's fevered brain.

Dr. Sanity comments:

"The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

"He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that occurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

"What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's interests at heart.

"This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement"."

Scripture tells us that "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." As we look at everything in life, political or otherwise, we should be mindful that a sound mind comes from God, but that the devil is the "father of lies".

"Democrats love to mock the Republican base for believing the Bible is true. Democratic basemen believe "Fahrenheit 9/11" is true!" - James Taranto writing in Best of the Web Today about the differences between the Republican and the Democrat bases.

Someone wrote to me offended by what I had written about Colorado C & D tax increases. This post is adapted from my reply.

The individual who wrote me is a MD who did not feel he could do what he does to care for the poor without the taxes that C & D would bring in. I replied:

It is the height of irresponsibility to pick the programs folk feel are most vital and threaten to cut their funding in order to try to blackmail the taxpayers into paying more taxes. It is not as though the state has been enduring economic hard times.

C & D are excuses for the legislature to not have to make real decisions about what is worthy of funding and what is not. I can't see how it benefits the residents of Colorado to reward legislators who refuse to do what we hired them to do with even more money with which to act irresponsibly.

This MD further correctly pointed out that we as Christians have a mandate to care for the poor. He felt I needed to temper my "rhetoric to include a Biblically based concern for the poor". I replied:

Concern for the poor has nothing to do with this situation (raising taxes at a time when there is a surplus).

Yes, as Christians we have a mandate to care for the poor. Both as individual Christians and as churches we are commanded to care for the poor.

However, we can't rob someone by force and claim God's blessing on what we do just because we happen to use some (very small) portion of what we take to fund what God commands us to do.

What if the Good Samaritan had setup a toll booth on the highway and charged everyone who wanted to use the road a fee to "help the poor man who was robbed and beaten". Instead of binding up his wounds and paying for his care and treatment himself, he made up posters with the likeness of the wounded man and told everyone the poor man would die if they did not pay the toll. Of course part of the money collected went to pay for a nice house for himself, a really nice toll station, assistant toll collectors, and armed guards for the toll facility. Even though he was collecting tolls there were still robbers attacking travelers so there was a never ending supply of new wounded folk to use for the posters to convince folk they should pay the toll. Those traveling the road knew they had paid a toll "to take care of those attacked" so they no longer felt they needed to take personal responsibility for those robbery victims they might happen to see. After all the "toll collector" was taking care of them. Thus their hearts were hardened and turned from God.

This is the dilemma of raising taxes to "do good". It is intellectually dishonest to use the commands of scripture to Christians to justify governmental action. Sorry it just will not wash! Government can only get the funds to do anything by taking those funds (by force if required) from the governed. You can look at it at best as "Robin Hood" and at worst as "Highway Robbery". In neither case can you justify this by quoting what scripture commands Christians to do, as not all the governed are Christians (and today very few are), and even God does not compel Christians to obey him. Government however compels obedience on pain of imprisonment or death.

This does not mean I am opposed to all governmental welfare programs, but it does mean I believe they must be justified to the taxpayers on their own basis as good things to do, without trying to twist scripture into supporting such programs.

I believe that caring for the poor and sick must start with the individual:

1) Christians must do what God leads them to do as individuals first.

2) Christians then should do what the Lord leads them to as families.

3) The local body of Christians must work together to follow God's commands.

4) Larger groups (state, national, and international in scope) of Christians should work as lead by God.

I truly believe that if Christians did all of the above there would be little left over for other groups to do.

In particular I believe governments should be cautious in what they do to "help folk" because of the danger of unintended consequences. The dangers of governmental action are the least when the control is local since folk can see what is going wrong and take action to fix things with the least bureaucracy. Therefore what can be done at the town or city level should be left for this most basic governmental unit to deal with. Only when things absolutely must, should they be bumped up to County, State, or Federal levels.

Hugh had a panel of three blogging pastors.

Dr. Tod Bolsinger told how he got into blogging and why he limits his scope to just those issues where he feels he has something worthwhile to offer which is almost never politics.

Dr. Mark Roberts told how Hugh got him to start blogging, and how his posts addressing some of the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code started his influence to spread.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds said he comes the closest of the panelists to dealing with political issues. When he deals with politics it is more to show himself as a rounded person than to be a political commentator. He wants to present a Christian world view, and will visit sites from non christians to see what they believe so that he can better present the Christian world view.

Hugh then presented his 7 questions:

1) You were all busy people, how have you balanced your time to fit in blogging? - Reynolds took from his football time and put limits on his time devoted to blogging. - Roberts said he started calling it a hobby but now realized it is a ministry. - Bolsinger feels blogging is part of being a Pastor. Reynolds asked about ghost blogging.

2) The dangers of email, or what motto would you put over your computer? Roberts mentioned the danger of posting when angry. Bolsinger said “do not let the Send button go down on your anger.” Reynolds talked of developing a thick skin as a blogger. Wait till you have won.

3) The dangers of fame in the blogosphere? Bolsinger quoted the Sermon on the Mount on doing things “to be seen of men” as opposed to doing it as a service. It is an issue of motivation. Reynolds said that in his profession blogging fame can harm his career. He quoted C.S. Lewis on the humble man thinking he is humble which means he is not. Roberts told of how a stranger complimented his blog, and how that felt so strange. He mentioned he must keep centered on serving the Lord.

4) The warning signs of the person who should not blog? Reynolds said if you are convinced you have something you must share. If you can’t abide criticism, or if you can’t take a stand. Roberts said if blogging is an escape from the world, or if blogging takes you away from things you must do, or if you are angry, or if you can’t use proper grammer. Bolsinger said you have to know how to write, and be comfortable writing. Blogging must be part of your Christian community.

5) It is against the law in the USA for a pastor to do candidate advocacy from the pulpit, but they can as a private individual blog on these issues. Should they? Roberts said if political things distract from your primary mission you should steer clear of politics. Bolsinger said he keeps his blog separate from his church, but that is just to keep a line of separation. However, he must always keep in mind his main job is as Pastor. Reynolds also keeps his blog separate from his job, but limits what he says in this sort of public forum.

6) Have you encouraged someone to blog? Bolsinger encouraged a Christian liberal to blog, and hopes he will come back to blogging. Reynolds would like Matthew Anderson and his other students to blog, and some Islamic friends who are upset with the hijacking of Islam. Roberts would love to see more thoughtful and wise folk including academics blogging. He mentioned Dennis Prager.

7) Christians of the past who it would have been great as bloggers. Reynolds - Joan of Arc & Charles Stewart. Roberts – Luther, the Apostle Paul, Calvin. Bolsinger – Abraham Kyper, Jurgen Multline [I’m sure I have mangled these last two names].

Joe Carter raised the fact that the best bloggers are servant leaders. Being a servant is limiting, and sets limits for the scope of our blogs. Matthew Anderson asked about being a specialist versus a generalist. Reynolds said both can be valid, where the generalist can show how to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. GodBloggers say Jesus is Lord, and that colors all they do.

Hugh asked if women bloggers have a harder time getting respect? Most women felt women bloggers face no undue hardships.

I was not able to keep up with all the final questions and comments.

Reynolds concluded he blessed bloggers since they can reach some of his students he can’t. Bolsinger said he needs interaction with people to help him improve his communication of the gospel to laymen. Roberts mentioned how his church became a partner of a church in New Orleans via the Internet.

One of the blessings of GodBlogCon has been the connections that have taken place between Christian bloggers in attendance. Besides the folk mentioned in Thurs Eve at GodBlogCon there were a few others I should mention. Marvin and Lisa Hutchens spent a lot of time fellowshipping with me which was neat since I think we were the only folk from Colorado to make it to GodBlogCon. Marvin is the blogger (www.LittleRedBlog.com), but he would not be able to if it were not for the support of his wife. Truly a Godly wife is a blessing from the Lord!

Peter Shinn of MarchTogether.com is passionate about uniting Christians to end abortion. I was able to be a small help by letting him post using my laptop. John Gillmartin of The SHEEP'S CRIB has neat sheep graphics on his business card.

Shelley Henderson of Kicking Over My Traces was one of a number of women bloggers at GodBlogCon. Others included La Shawn Barber, Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason, Christy-Lynn Wilson of B Relevant and The DeMoss Group, Amy Hall of A-Team Blog, Lores Rizkalla of Just a Woman, and Denyse O'Leary of Post-Darwinist. There were others but these were those that I remembered meeting.

Travis Fell of Voice in the Wilderness is working to influence the Texas legislature for God. As a former Texan I can only pray his efforts are sucessful. In his post of this evening he mentions Dr. Mark Roberts allusion to blogging as "a harsh mistress" but appears not to have gotten the reference to Robert A. Heinlein's classic "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" which is an updating of the story of the American revolution set in the future.

I am so blessed to have met these brothers & sisters in Christ who are also using this new tool, the Blog.

This afternoon I got to meet Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Dr. Mark Roberts, Dr. Andrew Jackson, Joe Carter, David Wayne, Marvin Hutchens, DJ Chuang, Stacy Harp, and La Shawn Barber. Then this evening Dr. John Mark Reynolds gave a great opening session.

His theme was "The Long Running Tension between Live versus Preserved Performance" complete with quotes from Plato and Dante, where Christianity fits into this divide, and how Blogging helps span the divide. Very interesting look at how bloggings fits into history, and the future. I believe Biola may post the recording of this talk at some point, and I will link to it if they do.

Tomorrow I will be heading to GodBlogCon held at The Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University in La Mirada, California. I hope to meet some of you there!

If you are local to Biola here are some things you should be aware of. There are some seats open to the public for the Friday night dialogue between Hugh Hewitt, John Mark Reynolds, Mark Roberts, and Tod Bolsinger. There is also a one-day only fee of $35 for Saturday only. Last, courtesy of Grace Hill Media, GBC are excited to offer a pre-screening of [ http://www.elizabethtown.com ] Elizabethtown for all GodBlogCon attendees. To take advantage of any of these offers please contact GBC directly. Click on the GBC logo above to reach their website.

Today Hugh Hewitt posted a link to an excellent piece by Donald Sensing titled Moral Levees. In it he discusses what went wrong and what went right when the moral levees failed in New Orleans. Read it!

The American Motor Coach Association has asked their members to send 500 buses to help transport folk out of the disaster area in coordination with FEMA. Grace Coach Lines/International Family Missions a bus company from Lafayette Colorado is participating.

Vinelife Community Church in Boulder Colorado is sending a driver and team from the church youth group on one of GCL/IFM buses with supplies down to the disaster area. They are asking for supplies and volunteers to go help with the rescue efforts. If you can bring non perishable food to the church between 8:30 and 10 AM Saturday 3 September 2005 it will get on this bus. For directions to the church click here.

They would also like to bring down:

Bibles

Paper Goods - plates, cups, diapers, tissue

Cleaning Supplies - Bleach, Top Job, Mr. Clean type products

Water - Bottled drinking water (NO glass containers)

Single Serving Snacks - Pop Tarts, Cereal Bars, Granola bars

Peanut Butter

Canned Meat

Heat and Eat Foods - Chili, stew, canned pasta with sauce, canned vegetables etc.

Lunchables or other single serving foods that DO NOT REQUIRE REFRIGERATION

MRE’s (Meals Ready to Eat)

Personal care items

Formula

Diapers

Even if you can't get items to the church at that time, please call the church at (303) 449-3330 and drop things off to go on a later bus.

They are also looking for places to live for folk who might want to relocate to Colorado. If you know of living spaces that would be available please contact Vinelife (303) 449-3330.

Today folk all across the Blogosphere are uniting to ask folk to donate to help those who are suffering in the wake of hurricane Katrina. I am joining this effort with the suggestion that you consider donating to the Salvation Army. Whenever disaster hits they have been out front providing relief to the victims and are one of the most efficient organizations around doing relief work. There are no huge salaries in the Salvation Army, just folk doing what God commanded and helping the poor and downtrodden.

Glenn Reynolds has a master list of charities to which you could also consider dontating.

My employer was giving a 50% match for donatations to the Central Texas Red Cross who are helps tens of thousands of the refugees from Katrina so I gave there too.

So please give.

After giving please go to N. Z. Bear's website and log your contribution. You can do so anonymously if you wish. He is keeping track of the contributions made because of this worldwide Blog effort. As I write this over $500,000 has been raised via blogs.

Technorati Tags: flood aid, Hurricane Katrina

Check out John Hinderaker's post on Religion and the Democrats over at Power Line. He looks at the new Pew Research Center survey.

Katherine Kersten has written a moving story "In Iraq, Grace takes amazing hold" for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. HT to Scott Johnson of Power Line.

As we prepare for Memorial Day, please remember not to expect any favorable coverage of the military, our servicemen, or veterans on TV or in our newspapers and magazines. If there is any that will be great, but such stories will be the exceptions against the background of anti-military slander that is the assumed truth by the vast majority of those working in the media today.

In a remarkable live interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, ABC's White House reporter Terry Moran said "There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous."

John Leo expands on this theme "In all my years in journalism, I don't think I have met more than one or two reporters who have ever served in the military or who even had a friend in the armed forces. Most media hiring today is from universities where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of American power is considered wrongheaded or evil."

Why do Servicemen and Veterans get so little respect in our society? It just may be due to the average citizen being fed a continuous diet of stories in the news based on "the premise that the military must be lying". How can we expect people to respect members of an organization that is presented as always lying?

My church is helping to honor our Servicemen and Veterans next Sunday and is taking pains to say "This event is not intended to be political in nature or an endorsement of war." This is true, but if you start from the assumption that "American projection of power around the world must be wrong" it is impossible to honor those who wield that power in the military.

Of course this is merely a manifestation of the thinking of those in the "Peace Movement" who regard any American use of force as evil. This explains why their enemies are the US military, American law enforcement, private firearms owners, and conservative Christians who support any of the above. Note that their outrage is selective, and directed at American use of force, as opposed to the use of force by dictators around the world.

John Leo also commented "The disdain that so many reporters have for the military (or for police, the FBI, conservative Christians, or right-to-lifers) frames the way that errors and bogus stories tend to occur. The antimilitary mentality makes atrocity stories easier to publish, even when they are untrue. The classic example is CNN's false 1998 story that the U.S. military knowingly dropped nerve gas on Americans during the Vietnam War. On the other hand, brutal treatment of dissenters by Fidel Castro tends to be softened or omitted in the American press because so many journalists still see him as the romanticized figure from their youth in the 1960s. Another example: It's possible to read newspapers and newsmagazines carefully and never see anything about the liberal indoctrination now taking place at major universities. This has something to do with the fact that the universities are mostly institutions of the left and that newsrooms tend to hire from the left and from the universities in question."

This cultural background makes honoring our veterans next weekend even more important. It also underscores the importance of reforming our culture starting with the moral sickness in our universities today.

Back in February we noted the attack on James Watt and Christians in general by Bill Moyers based on fictionalized versions of Watt's statements and Christian's beliefs. After Power Line drew attention to Moyer's remarks and James Watt's response to them, Moyers called Watt and apologized and promised to print an apology.

What was printed fell far sort of an apology, however. At the time I wrote "After launching a vicious attack on Christians and claiming that Christians did not care about the environment, and then using James Watt as the poster child for all that is wrong with Christian beliefs, he now switches and tries to claim that he, Bill Moyers, and those that think like him are the true Christians, and James Watt is merely the poser who falsely claims to be Christian."

Scott W. Johnson wrote on Power Line "In other words, Moyers says the quote was fake but accurate, and in any event, Watt is a lousy Christian. Moyers is a disgrace. He not only misquoted Watt, he completely misrepresented his environmental policies. And virtually every other "fact" in Moyers' hate-filled tirade against conservative Christians was a lie, as was its central thesis."

Today the Washington Post published a column by James Watt about the attempts by the Religious Left to use the issue of the environment to divide the "coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals" that had such a significant impact on the last election.

Watt quotes Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago where she fabricated a lie by among other things selectively quoting half of a sentence spoken by Watt in a way that made it sound as if he had said the opposite of what he actually said. This brings to mind the great "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" from 1962 in which C.S. Lewis pointed out the demonic trends in American education. "We now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell." Unfortunately things have only gotten worse in our "education system" since Lewis wrote this as evidenced by this sort of thing coming from a school devoted to training ministers of the Gospel.

Watt also quotes a statement from the National Council of Churches about a straw man anti-environment "false gospel" promoted by "proud preachers". However when asked by Watt, they could not name a single person who actually believed this "false gospel" nor name a single "proud preacher" who taught this.

John Hinderaker of Power Line writes:

"This would be shocking, if we were not so thoroughly accustomed to the mendacity of the left. A Lutheran theologian offers, as the key support for her attack on a former government official, a single sentence--from which she has removed the second half, thereby reversing its meaning. Is this really what they teach in the seminary? As a Lutheran, I hope not. Then, the National Council of Churches issues a press release attacking a purported body of theological opinion which is said to be associated with "emboldened political leaders and policymakers"--Republicans all, of course. Yet, when challenged to name a single person who holds these supposedly widespread views, the person who headed up the task force for the NCC is stumped. He can't name a single human being who holds the views he has so vigorously denounced. This is, apparently, the quality of scholarship we should expect from the National Council of Churches. Pathetic.

"Thanks to Jim Watt for pointing out today's article to us. Mr. Watt is a kindly gentleman who was enjoying a well-deserved retirement from public life, when he was dragged back into the political fray, against his will, by virtue of being relentlessly libelled by Bill Moyers and other liberals. It's good to see that, having been forced to participate once more in public debate, he is defending himself with the skill and determination that, decades ago, he brought to his years of public service."

A big thank you too to Power Line for calling attention to the attacks on Mr. Watt and other Christians.

Today a reader asked if I thought it was "morally wrong for a Christian to be a democrat"? In reply I said:

God is not a Republican or a Democrat :>)

The bible teaches us some moral principles that are routinely broken by people who are members of every political party. Note, however, that people make moral decisions as individuals, not as parties. There is no Christian political party just as there is no Christian company, just individuals who follow Christ however imperfectly.

Just to look at just one issue, I disagree with the position on abortion taken by the Democrat party in their platform, but so do many Democrats. While I like many things the Libertarian party supports, I also disagree with them on abortion, as do some Libertarians. The Libertarians are more extreme than the Democrats on this issue. However I am convinced there are true Christians who are members of both parties.

Humans are not perfect, so it would be unreasonable to expect any group of humans to be perfect. I and many other Christians have chosen to work within the Republican party as we feel that on balance it offends less against what we see as the teachings of scripture than the Democrat party. Others disagree.

To be effective within the political arena in the USA you must work within either the Republican or the Democrat party. On the national and state levels third parties have zero power, so working within them is the same as disengaging from the political process. We have to work within one of the two major parties if we are to change anything in our country.

I would love nothing more than to have two good candidates to choose from for each office in September. Therefore I hope that those within the Democrat party manage to improve it. Meanwhile I will work for issues and candidates I believe in. At this point in time most of those candidates are Republicans.

I hope this clarifies where I am coming from.

The Church I attend, Vinelife Community Church, is helping to sponsor a Serviceman's and Veteran's Day of Appreciation to be held at the Boulder Country Fairgrounds on Sunday May 29, 2005 from 10:30 AM to 2 PM. If you are in the area I hope you will join us in saying a big "THANK YOU" to all who are serving or have served our country in the armed forces.

More information is available here, here, and here.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters drew my attention today to an article in the New York Daily News about remarks by Pat Robertson on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that are not helpful to the cause of trying to get good judges through the US Senate, even though Pat Robertson evidently was trying to support them.

At first I was cautious wondering if his remarks were taken out of context, particularly since the longest quote in the New York Daily News article was one which I could largely agree with.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings"

Some might feel that statement is wrong, but it can at least be debated by reasonable people.

The 9/11 terrorists did a lot of damage to this country, but they united us in a way not seen in a long time. Obvious external enemies tend to do that.

On the other hand "the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together" has resulted in what Dennis Prager calls a civil war in our country. This is not to say our current culture war is anything less than an all out (cold) civil war, but thank God it is not a shooting war. I pray it never becomes a shooting war!

After I questioned the context of Pat Robertson's statements both Captain Ed and Derek Rose the author of the New York Daily News article provided the remarks in context:

" STEPHANOPOULOS: But sir, you have described this (inaudible) battle in pretty apocalyptic terms. You said: The liberals are engaging in an all-out assault on Christianity. The Democrats will appoint judges who don't share our Christian values and will dismantle Christian culture. And the out-of-control judiciary -- this was in your last book -- is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history: more serious than Al Qaida, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War.

"ROBERTSON: Yes, I really believe that."

There is more which tends to moderate what he just said, but few will get past the above without dismissing Pat as a kook, and by inference all Christians and Republicans with him. The fact that Pat Robertson no longer has very large followings in either Christian or Republican circles will not matter.

Captain Ed wrote "Gee, Thanks, Pat" to which I can only add "with friends like these ..."

One of the main reasons I and so many other Christians supported President Bush and the Republican Senatorial candidates this last November was that we knew that one of the most important issues that will determine what sort of country our Children and Grandchildren will grow up in, is who will be our judges. The recent Terri Schiavo drama helped drive home this point.

Filibustering in the US Senate is a means a minority in the Senate can use to prevent the majority from passing a law, and it requires a supermajority of 60 out of the 100 Senators to break a filibuster. When it comes to blocking the creation of new laws the filibuster has in general been a good thing for the country. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but has been part of the rules of the US Senate since the early days of our country.

The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships. It does not say this should require a supermajority.

Before President G. W. Bush entered office, never in the history of our country was a President's nominations for the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court filibustered. Exactly once there was a filibuster of a nomination of a sitting Supreme Court justice to become Chief Justice, and that was an unusual case of a nomination submitted at the end of the year when the Congress was about to go home, and the justice in question had serious ethical questions. That's it!

Our Constitution has a number of supermajority requirements in it including for doing things such as amending the Constitution, but the approval or rejection of a president's judicial nominations by the US Senate was not one of them. The Democrats are lying through their teeth and trying to tell the American public that all they are doing is upholding the traditions of the Senate, when really they are trying to ram though an Amendment of the Constitution without following the Constitutional provisions for such an Amendment.

Unfortunately there are Republicans who are siding with the Democrats in this unconstitutional Amendment attempt. Hugh Hewitt just reported on his radio program and his website that "Republican" Senator John McCain has declared he is going to support the Democrats in their unconstitutional filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominations.

There are also Republican Senators Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu and Warner who are said to be thinking of joining Senator McCain in betraying the trust of the American people and of those who worked so hard to get them elected, by supporting the Democrats in this back door attempt to Amend the US Constitution.

Please call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask to speak with each of the above Senator's offices. Be polite, but ask them to please support the Constitution by voting against the use of the filibuster against the President's judicial nominations. If you are a past donor to Senatorial campaigns let them know that if they vote against the Constitution you will donate to their primary opponents next time around.

After you have left messages for the 7 waffling Senators above, call back and leave messages for Senators Frist and Specter urging them to take prompt action on the President's nominees. All of the President's judicial nominees currently before the US Senate would be approved, if they could only get a vote.

Senator's emails and direct phone numbers can be found here.

To learn more about the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations click here. To learn more about the history of judicial nominations click here.

Ed at Captain's Quarters has some choice words about Senator McCain and his history in the US Senate.

UPDATE: It was pointed out to me by Jarrad Shiver that my original wording "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" could easily be read to imply that the Senate was under an obligation to approve the President's nominations, which is of course incorrect. Therefore I changed it to read "The US Constitution gives the US Senate the duty to approve or reject the President's nominations for Federal Judgeships" which I hope clarifies what I meant to say.

John H. Hinderaker of Power Line writes "We have expressed our disappointment, in several respects, with this year's Pulitzer awards." "Cartoonist Nick Anderson of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal was awarded the top prize in print journalism "for his unusual graphic style that produced extraordinarily thoughtful and powerful messages," according to the Pulitzer Web site.

"You can see Anderson's prize-winning cartoons here. Virtually every one is a vicious, hateful attack on President Bush, the United States, or Christianity."

Here is one example:

"Yup, that's right. The central symbol of the Christian faith, with its two billion adherents, is just a tool to ride herd on those poor Democrats. That's what happens to them, I guess, when they aren't being run over by construction equipment or set aflame by Vietnam veterans." [as depicted in his other prize winning cartoons]

"Am I missing something, or is this a pathetic body of work, as whiny, self-pitying and incompetent as it is hateful? It's of a piece, though, with the journalism that the Pulitzer committee found worthy of reward this year. Loyalty to the Democratic party and antipathy toward America are the only qualities that count."

Read the whole article.

The website for GodBlogCon is now operational and they expect to be accepting registrations soon.

"The Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University is proud to announce that the first ever GodBlog Convention will be held at Biola University on October 13th through October 15th, 2005. GodBlogCon is designed to establish and cultivate relationships within the Christian blogging community and to provide opportunities for Christian bloggers to think about their role within the broader blogging world."

I will post more as information becomes available.

This morning before the news of the Pope's death, Hugh Hewitt wrote: "With Reagan and Solzhenitsyn, John Paul II represents the three forces of opposition to communism that shattered the evil empire, the Soviet Union --the American-led West, the Eastern European resistance, and the Russian dissident movement. They also represented the three spheres of opposition: political, artistic and spiritual. Each man came into the field of his greatness later in life, and each has endured hard circumstances in their later years. I hope Solzhenitisyn is able to and inclined to write about his colleagues in the struggle that triumphed."

I am not a Catholic, but there is no denying the huge impact for good that Pope John Paul II made on the world.

UPDATE: I relied on what turned out to be a premature report of the Pope's death when I made this post. None the less it appears his time on earth is coming to an end.

"The Nazis believed that killing was the highest form of treatment for disability." - Joe Ford a disabled Harvard student writing in The Harvard Crimson.

"Misery can only be removed from the world by painless extermination of the miserable." - a Nazi writer quoted by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide

Joe Ford knows about the attitudes towards the disabled in today's society. He was born with severe cerebral palsy, and someone in the delivery room removed his endotracheal tube during resuscitation in his first hour of life. "This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people."

"The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country’s decency."

Unfortunately we are failing the test. Read the entire article, and pray for our country.

UPDATE: Apparently this touched a raw nerve with many who would dehumanize others so they can justify in their own minds killing the unwanted. I am sorry for such folk, but will not provide a platform for them to spout their bigotry. Therefore comments on this post are closed.

Hugh Hewitt linked to a great article at The Mudville Gazette on why liberals seem so scared of Christians. He calls this "the Boogeyman of Jesusland" and I have noted it myself all over the Main Stream Media. I think for example this helps expalin why liberals were so scared of and willing to trash James Watt.

"It's an invocation of a liberal boogeyman, you see. Republican Senators pander to a right-wing, Christian, ultra-conservative base - Jesusland. Jesusland was last invoked in strength in the aftermath of the Democrat's November meltdown, a handy excuse for missing the mark, for failing to resonate with voters. Quality of candidates and platforms meant nothing - moral values were the hinge on which the elections turned. Iraq meant nothing to the average voter. The New York Times even went so far as to claim that gay marriage was the only issue that really mattered to GI's deployed there. The drooling fanatics of Jesusland, you see, are running this country. In fact, they are running it into the ground."

Greyhawk goes into much detail looking at reality versus the bogyman, and looking at what true Christians believe. He concludes:

"So where are the real Christians? If you aren't one of them, rest assured that although not a majority there are some within a few hundred yards of you. And Christians everywhere in America are busy this weekend praying. For America, for the world, and for peace for Terri Schiavo and her family. Yes, even for Michael.

"And celebrating a season of rebirth, and redemption."

Read the whole thing.

Ed Morrissey of Captian's Quarters has an excellent post today "Hijacking Terri" talking about how Randall Terry who calls himself the family spokesman is refusing to honor the family wishes and is creating a crisis outside the hospice where Terri is being killed.

The circus atmosphere has gotten to the point where the Communist Youth Brigades stole the microphones from Randall in order to get their message out.

"The emotions have run away with the argument, to the point where conservatives have now started to argue for the executive to outgun the judiciary and impose its will regardless of the law.

"It's time to put the signs down, and start praying for Terri. We need to fix the system, not trash it completely, and we need to stop giving air time to the most radical elements on both sides so we can determine the best way to do so."

Amen.

John Fund draws some interesting parallels between Terri Schiavo and Elian Gonzalez.

"On Thursday, April 20, [2000] the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--the same court that rejected the pleas of Terri Schiavo's parents last week--turned down the Justice Department's request to order Elian removed from the home of his Miami relatives. Moreover, the court expressed serious doubts about the Justice Department's reading of both the law and its own regulations, adding that Elian had made a "substantial case on the merits" of his claim."

"clearly many of the people who approved of dramatic federal intervention to return Elian to Cuba took a completely different tack when it came to the argument over saving Terri Schiavo. Rep. Frank makes a compelling argument that Congress took an extraordinary step when it met in special session to create a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo's rights were being violated. He may have a point when he accuses Republicans of "trying to command judicial activism and dictate outcomes when they don't like" rulings. But where were Mr. Frank and other liberals when the Clinton administration decided to sidestep a federal appeals court and order an armed raid against Elian Gonzalez? While Mr. Frank allowed that the use of assault rifles in the Elian raid was "excessive" and "frightening," he also defended the Justice Department's view that "of course [agents] had to use force."

"According to some reports, Gov. Jeb Bush considered seizing Mrs. Schiavo, à la Elian, and taking her to a hospital so she could be fed. But he did not do so. "I've consistently said that I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," the governor says. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration showed no such restraint when it came to Elian Gonzalez."

Read the whole article, and keep on praying.

Power Line brought my attention to "The Politics of the Schiavo Case" by Jeffrey Bell & Frank Cannon in the latest edition of The Weekly Standard.

Bell and Cannon make some very interesting points:

"It was a substantive policy victory for forces opposed to the right to life (it doesn't seem accurate, in this instance, to describe these forces as "pro-choice"), but it may be a victory they come to regret. For one thing, in content it was far more an extension of the implications of legalized abortion than of assisted suicide.

"Of the whole array of anti-life agenda items, assisted suicide receives the greatest level of support in public opinion polling, undoubtedly because it is seen as the least coercive. But in the end game of the Terri Schiavo case, the longstanding assertion by her husband that Terri would welcome what was being done to her seemed at most a formality. The courts all but made explicit that the killing was not really about her wishes but only about those of her husband and legal guardian. The implication that Terri's fate was to be the choice of the husband, and of him alone, followed the form of abortion law, which puts the choice in the hands of the mother, and of no one else.

"This matters because abortion, not assisted suicide, is the mother of all American social issues. We say American, and not Russian or Chinese or British, because it is the American founding document that guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and asserts as its only authority that of the Creator--the authority of Nature and of Nature's God. If you had to pick one reason that there is a pro-life movement in America and not Europe, it is the nature of our founding."

This observation of course is based on the Declaration.

Bell and Cannon then conclude by showing how this impacts the upcoming battles in the US Senate over President Bush's judicial nominations:

"For President Bush and the social conservatives who comprise the central rampart of his base, the courts' naked assertion of judicial supremacy in deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo represents an important moment. This is because the premise of the Democratic filibuster of the president's conservative judicial nominees is that the Roe v. Wade decision must never again be called into question.

"The judicial confirmation debate will now unavoidably be about whether democratic decision-making on abortion should continue to be prohibited by our courts and (effectively) by the American legal profession. From the beginning, those who believed Roe would corrupt the rule of law feared that state sanction of private killing would put all public order and all private restraint in doubt. The fate of Terri Schiavo makes clear that those fears were utterly on target."

As the death of Terri Schiavo grows near, let us not only continue to pray for Terri, her family, and our country, but also vow to do whatever it takes to reform the judicial system in our country.

Ed Morrissey of Captian's Quarters today writes on the calls of some for Jeb Bush to take Terri Schiavo by force and defy the courts. This would be an attempt to do right by doing wrong and would not help Terri, her family, the rule of law, or our country.

I find myself in agreement with his thoughts:

"But we have to draw a line here, and that line is the law."

"We cannot allow our passions for Terri and the Schindlers to overload our respect for the law which protects us from an overpowerful executive branch. Reverend Mahoney calls for little less than an armed coup d'etat in Florida, one in which Bush would make both the legislature and the judiciary completely irrelevant by the use of force. I cannot imagine a more dangerous and terrible outcome from this tragedy than that, especially since in the end it will have only the effect of momentarily delaying Terri's torturous death.

"It's time to cool the passions and start praying for mercy."

Amen.

Marianne M. Jennings has written one of the most powerful and moving pieces I have ever read on the Terri Schiavo situation. She does so from a unique perspective.

"Our daughter, Claire, has had a feeding tube for 10 years, and my mother is closing in on one year with hers. I am generationally sandwiched between feeding tube patients. Like Terri Schiavo, no one is really sure how much breaks through my daughter's or mother's neurological remnants. Also like Mrs. Schiavo, neither needs a respirator. To the clinical, the three are in a "vegetative state." The inexperienced callously refer to them as clumps of flesh that hover in a puzzling state for inexplicable reasons.

"But those of us who live with and care for these magnificent souls question the analyses hurled about as cherished life hangs in the balance. I offer my lessons from a decade of exposure to the "vegetative state.""

Marianne concludes:

"I fear for the clinical callousness of this tube removal. We turn our backs on the closest thing this world has to offer when it comes to angels. This removal is a giant leap backwards as mankind denies its spirituality and harms the helpless. I worry about the precedent for our Claire and my mom, but I fear for us."

Read the whole article, and please continue to pray for Terri, her family, and our country.

Hugh Hewitt today read on his radio program the affidavit of Dr. William Chesire a Board Certified Neurologist. Dr. Chesire examined Terri Schiavo on 1 March 2005. He discloses that to the best of his knowledge he was the first Neurologist to examine Terri Schiavo in nearly three years! He points out that studies have shown that there is a very high rate of false initial diagnosis of Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and that scientific knowledge in this field has significantly expanded since Terri was diagnosed three years ago.

In particular since that time doctors have become aware of a different diagnosis that should be applied to some patients like Terri called "minimally conscious state". Like many other neurologists he says that a proper diagnosis must include PET or fMRI studies, which have never been done on Terri, apparently because her estranged husband has not permitted these tests to be done. He then goes into great detail why he feels that the original diagnosis of PVS is false.

He concludes "Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelyhood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than in a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgement it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water."

"When serious doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not consiously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life."

Power Line tonight comments that one reason so many have come to similar conclusions as this Doctor is that we have seen the video tapes of Terri reacting to those around her, and just can't believe she is not alive and at least somewhat aware inside her crippled body. They quote Groucho Marx "Who You Gonna Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?" to explain the reaction of those who will not look at the evidence.

There may be very little hope left for Terri, but please still continue to pray for her, and the judges and politicians who could help if they wished to.

We are in day 5 of the court ordered torturing of Terri Schiavo to death. Soon we may have the answer to her estranged husband's question quoted above. Please continue to pray for Terri and our country, and help in the ways suggested by Focus on the Family and Terri's family.

In defiance of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President, the Federal District Court in Florida (Judge appointed by Clinton) and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have both refused to hear the case on the merits and grant an emergency halt to the dehydration and starving of Terri Schiavo to death. An appeal has been made to the Supreme Court. If there ever was more dramatic evidence of that fact that our Court system is out of control and totally unresponsive to the will of the people as expressed by our elected representatives, I have not heard of it.

No matter what happens to Terri we must get the courts under control. This will start with President Bush's nominations to the Court of Appeals and the Senate Democrat's attempt to impose an unconstitutional supermajority requirement on their approval. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile keep praying.

This evening we are entering the 4th day of the court ordered torturing of Terri Schiavo to death. She may only have a few days left to live, and everyone should pray for her and our country. Terri will be in a better place if she dies, but our country will no longer be able to claim:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Our founding fathers believed "their Creator" gave us "unalienable Rights" and "that among these are Life". Our God given Right to Life is the most fundamental of all our human rights.

They further said:

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

The whole purpose of Government is securing these Rights, the first of which is Life. The government of the State of Florida and to a lesser degree the United States have failed in this most fundamental duty.

But so what one might ask. The founding fathers had an answer:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is not some radical call for "revolution now" or such nonsense. After all we must consider:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

However when our government abuses the Rights of the innocent, it does so at great peril. Eventually "If This Goes On -" our government will lose all the respect of the citizens. Then we will find:

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

I pray our country never reaches that point. The current path is not hopeful, however.

So let us pray for Terri and our country. Let us also work to right the wrongs starting by calling those in Florida who could help but will not. Be respectful but strongly urge them to change their minds.

On Friday Hugh Hewitt called on all Christians to hold up Terri Schiavo in prayer, and as well pray for those who can help that they choose to do so. This is indeed the main issue here. Have we as a country been so taken in by a culture of death that we will stand by silently as evil persons torture and kill Terri Schiavo? Has the Christian Church been so taken in by political agendas that we can't oppose the murder of the inconvenient?

Terri Schiavo facts:

Terri Schiavo is not on "life support". She is living and breathing on her own without medical aid, and has lived the last five years in a Hospice not a Hospital. All she requires is food and water delivered by tube, since she can not eat normally.

There is grave doubt that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) since the tests required to determine this have never been performed. Her estranged husband has not allowed them, and a Judge has sided with the husband.

Terri has not been given good care. In fact under normal circumstances the care would be considered criminal neglect since she has had teeth rot due to lack of proper dental care, and has skin ulcers that would be easily prevented though simple basic care. The Judge has refused to remove the estranged husband as her guardian so she can receive proper care.

Terri has not been given therapy or rehabilitation since 1992 since her estranged husband has refused to allow it. It is possible she could eat without the tube if the effort to feed her this way was not too much bother.

The judge's order to starve Terri to death is nothing short of Judicial Murder.

It is shameful that those who call themselves Christian have in many cases acted like the Priest and Levite Jesus spoke of in the parable of the Good Samaritan and "passed by on the other side" rather than get involved. Almost none of the larger Christian denominations in the USA have supported Terri's right to live. Her support has come almost exclusively from the conservative evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

The lawyer for Terri's estranged husband issued a statement trying to justify her murder and attacking those who are trying to save her life.

Terri's situation needs to be viewed in the broader context of attacks on life such as the infamous Gronigen Protocol under which children in the Netherlands are being murdered because they are inconvenient.

Unfortunately there is a political side to this as well, with congressional Democrats trying to oppose any attempt to help Terri, as they have for days. Peggy Noonan points out that if Terri dies the Republicans will be to blame too since they have the power to do something. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family points out that shamefully one of the obstructionists in Congress has been a Republican leader.

In this case as with so many others, the Main Stream Media has been lying through their teeth to the American public. Read Pete Winn of Focus on the Family's article "Tell the Truth!".

The best single article on Terri situation I have found was published in National Review Online by Reverend Robert Johansen.

Dr. Dobson urged listeners to Hugh Hewitt's show to check his website Family.org and in particular the CitizenLink page for suggestions for what we can do to help Terri.

I pray that Christians and all who support Life will do everything in their power to help save Terri Schiavo.

UPDATE: President Bush has signed emergency legislation that allows Terri's parents to go before a Federal judge and ask their daughter not be killed. It does not require that the Federal courts agree to hear the case, nor does it mean the Florida judge will accept being over ruled by the Federal courts (if indeed he is).

This does not end the struggle for Terri's life, or the political ramifications. While even Bernard Sanders the Socialist member of congress (who the news media always call the "independent" member of congress) abstained from this vote, and therefore did not vote against this bill, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats voted against giving Terri Schiavo a chance at life. All those who value life need to remember them and donate money to their opponents next election cycle.

Voted Against Life

Tammy Baldwin - Wisconsin-2nd, Democrat

Shelley Berkley - Nevada-1st, Democrat

Timothy H. Bishop - New York-1st, Democrat

Ginny Brown-Waite - Florida-5th, Republican

G. K. Butterfield - North Carolina-1st, Democrat

Michael E. Capuano - Massachusetts-8th, Democrat

Benjamin L. Cardin - Maryland-3rd, Democrat

Russ Carnahan - Missouri-3rd, Democrat

Julia Carson - Indiana-7th, Democrat

Michael N. Castle - Delaware-At Large, Republican

Wm. Lacy Clay - Missouri-1st, Democrat

Emanuel Cleaver - Missouri-5th, Democrat

James E. Clyburn - South Carolina-6th, Democrat

John Conyers Jr. - Michigan-14th, Democrat

Jim Davis - Florida-11th, Democrat

Charles W. Dent - Pennsylvania-15th, Republican

Norman D. Dicks - Washington-6th, Democrat

Michael F. Doyle - Pennsylvania-14th, Democrat

Lane Evans - Illinois-17th, Democrat

Barney Frank - Massachusetts-4th, Democrat

Luis V. Gutierrez - Illinois-4th, Democrat

Alcee L. Hastings - Florida-23rd, Democrat

Rush D. Holt - New Jersey-12th, Democrat

Steny H. Hoyer - Maryland-5th, Democrat

Steve Israel - New York-2nd, Democrat

Marcy Kaptur - Ohio-9th, Democrat

Patrick J. Kennedy - Rhode Island-1st, Democrat

John B. Larson - Connecticut-1st, Democrat

Sander M. Levin - Michigan-12th, Democrat

John Lewis - Georgia-5th, Democrat

Doris O. Matsui - California-5th, Democrat

Jim McDermott - Washington-7th, Democrat

Cynthia McKinney - Georgia-4th, Democrat

Brad Miller - North Carolina-13th, Democrat

James P. Moran - Virginia-8th, Democrat

John P. Murtha - Pennsylvania-12th, Democrat

Jerrold Nadler - New York-8th, Democrat

John W. Olver - Massachusetts-1st, Democrat

Frank Pallone Jr. - New Jersey-6th, Democrat

Bill Pascrell Jr. - New Jersey-8th, Democrat

Donald M. Payne - New Jersey-10th, Democrat

David E. Price - North Carolina-4th, Democrat

David G. Reichert - Washington-8th, Republican

Steven R. Rothman - New Jersey-9th, Democrat

Adam B. Schiff - California-29th, Democrat

Allyson Y. Schwartz - Pennsylvania-13th, Democrat

Robert C. Scott - Virginia-3rd, Democrat

Christopher Shays - Connecticut-4th, Republican

John M. Spratt Jr. - South Carolina-5th, Democrat

Ted Strickland - Ohio-6th, Democrat

Bennie G. Thompson - Mississippi-2nd, Democrat

Chris Van Hollen - Maryland-8th, Democrat

Peter J. Visclosky - Indiana-1st, Democrat

Debbie Wasserman Schultz - Florida-20th, Democrat

Melvin L. Watt - North Carolina-12th, Democrat

Anthony D. Weiner - New York-9th, Democrat

Robert Wexler - Florida-19th, Democrat

David Wu - Oregon-1st, Democrat

Recently Dr. Andrew Jackson posted some comments by Mark Byron on theology and its resulting social implications. Mark claimed that in some areas the Democrats were closer to biblical teaching, while on others the Republicans were. This got me thinking about some of the confused theology used to support political positions, and in particular the confusion in the “Social Justice” wing of Christianity.

Jesus said “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 22:37 – 40

Our duty is to love God and love our neighbors.

Scripture addresses our obligations to the poor, the widowed, our parents, and our neighbors. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30 – 37) Jesus goes into some detail about who is a “neighbor” to the man who was robbed. In it he asked who was the neighbor of the man who had been robbed? The answer was “The one who showed mercy towards him.” Jesus replied “Go and do the same.”

Please note that just as we can’t be saved by someone else’s faith in God (“God has no Grandchildren” – David du Plessis) we also can’t fulfill the Commandment to “love your neighbor” by pawning that duty off to someone else. This is an individual obligation and not an obligation of “society” or even worse “government”

The Good Samaritan paid the costs to help the injured stranger himself. What if instead he erected a toll on the road and forced everyone who traveled that road to pay part of the expenses for the injured man, plus the Samaritan’s salary for running the toll booth? Would this fulfill the Commandment?

Unfortunately those in the “social justice” wing of Christianity all too often forget that Jesus taught his followers to care for the poor, the widowed, their parents, and their neighbors, but never instructed them to take the funds for this by force from everyone against their will. When someone calls for government to be in the business of doing what we should be doing, they forget that the only way that government gets the money for all of these “good” things they want government to do is by taking it by force from everyone.

This twisting of scripture and Jesus teachings has multiple ill effects. It is bad for the “social justice” Christian because he is asking someone else (government) to do what Jesus called on his followers to do (not someone else). It is bad for the government because it forces the government to take more by force from the governed to give to those who are specially favored. This delegitimizes government and weakens its moral authority even in the areas government should be involved in. It is bad for the governed since it causes them to either resent government or to engage in the politics of envy. Lastly it is bad for the recipient of the governmental benefits since they come to consider the benefits to be a “right” rather than a gift given because of the giver’s belief that this is what God wanted them to do.

Mark wrote “you can see areas where the Democrats are stronger and areas where the Republicans are stronger”

The Democrats want a big government and those in the “Social Justice” wing of Christianity give them cover to claim this is “right” and “moral” when it really is a total twisting of what Jesus taught.

This is not to say the Republicans are without sin in this regard, but this sort of thinking is much more entrenched in the Democrat party than the Republicans.