Liberals are also lazy

One of the reasons more people don't turn away from liberalism is that they're just plain lazy. They're too lazy to expend any effort looking into an issue beyond a 30 second sound bite they hear on the radio between pop tunes. I'll give you a case in point.

Liberals have run for cover in light of the damning videos taken of Planned Parenthood executives and employees brokering deals to sell aborted baby parts. Their first response was a blanket denial but that turned out to be fruitless since people could watch the videos for themselves and see Planned Parenthood officials, like Dr. Mary Gatter, literally haggling over the price per “specimen.” The most recent tactic is to dismiss the videos as “doctored” and “heavily edited.”

A YouTube channel by a group called, The Young Turks, posted its own video “debunking” the controversial videos. Here's an excerpt I've transcribed from the Young Turk's rebuttal:

“The NY Times has done its due diligence and has investigated the two videos that were released by the Center for Medical Progress.... Now, I'm glad a member of the mainstream media has delved into this and is actually telling people the truth about those videos – how many of the statements were taken out of context or how the statements were misrepresented.... No one else in the media is saying that. Everyone else in the media is saying, 'Oh look, here's what the Center for Medical Progress is saying they experienced. Judge for yourself.' No, no, no! Don't judge for yourself. Be a journalist and actually investigate this and figure out whether or not the claims are true. And thankfully, the NY times did do this.”

The video continues by quoting the findings of the NY Times investigation. It's rather hilarious that these young liberals, who stage their video like it's a news program, exhort people to be journalists and investigate the claims of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) while they themselves seem to have not done any investigation beyond reading the NY Times article. Have they bothered to investigate the CMP? Oh, and have they bothered to investigate the NY Times? It sounds to me like theirs is a case of simply believing those with whom they agree. Their channel isn't journalism – it's propaganda.

Listen to me, all ye who are liberal: The entire, unedited videos taken by the CMP are available on YouTube. You can watch them for yourselves here. They're not doctored. They're not edited. They are the raw footage of Planned Parenthood employees and partners discussing the selling baby parts. If you think the 8:25 version of Dr. Gatter haggling like a used car salesman is taken out of context, you can watch the entire 1:13:38 and see if she made any other comments that might paint an entirely different picture of her intentions. Go ahead and watch it. I dare you.

So my question is, why didn't the Young Turks bother to watch the unedited videos for themselves? Instead of posting quotes from the NY Times claiming the edited parts of video were exculpatory, they could have included the relevant parts in their phony news show. I sincerely believe that even at the time the Turks posted their own video, they had not bothered to watch the unedited videos provided by the CMP. It wouldn't surprise me if they haven't watched them even to this day.

I think the liberal elite is counting on the fact that the peasant class they call their base is too lazy to sit through an hour long video. People like Nancy Pelosi repeatedly call the videos “heavily edited” knowing that none of their base will ever learn that the unedited versions show the same things as the shorter versions. By the way, neither has Pelosi watched the unedited videos.

The liberal aristocracy can throw around works like “doctored,” “edited,” and “fake” and your run of the mill liberal will believe without question – all the while, the truth can be found with the click of a mouse and a small investment of time. But a small investment of time is too much to ask. Most liberals are too lazy.

Shut up and write the check!

So, I've told you before that liberals are brain damaged. Here's another example.

Liberals claim to be tolerant, right? I think their favorite Bible verse is, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” It's probably the only verse some of them know. If a person wants to have sex without being married, with multiple partners, or even with same sex partners, it's none of my business. What happens between consenting adults is a private matter and my opinion of the behavior is not welcome. I even hear similar things from Christians: how, if a young, single woman gets pregnant, we need to support her as a church and not judge her. Does any of this sound familiar?

Here's where the brain damaged part comes in. Liberals are champions of the “right to privacy” but what happens when these people contract a sexually transmitted disease or a young girl gets pregnant? Often they seek out public assistance!

How many millions are we spending on AIDS research? How about welfare, food stamps, and rent subsidies to single mothers? And don't forget the tax payer money going to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions! When these people were engaging in their reckless behavior, it was a private matter; now that they have to face the consequences of their bad decisions, it's suddenly not so private anymore. Now they expect to be supported by the public.

It's not just the people who engage in this type of behavior that bother me; it's also the enablers, those who defend them. The same people who are telling me not to judge those who do these things are also telling me I have to pay more in taxes to help them.

It's rather pathetic. Liberal elitists view themselves as tolerant (by not judging others) and compassionate (by wanting to support them). What they don't understand is that this kind of tolerance and compassion only exacerbates the problem. People need to be told that bad decisions have consequences. They need to hear that having a child before being married virtually guarantees a lifetime of poverty. They need to be told that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and STDs. They need to understand that “safe and legal” abortions can have severe and lasting physical and psychological side effects. We also need to stop subsidizing poor choices with government programs that only perpetuate poverty.

If the public is paying the bills, then shouldn't the public have a say in the matter? What is wrong with telling young men and women it's a bad idea to have sex or to live together without being married? Yet if I say this, then I'm the one accused of being “intolerant” or that I'm trying to force my religion on everyone else.

Liberals are 100% backward in their thinking. The compassionate thing to do is to tell people it's wrong to engage in certain behaviors. If we truly care for these people, we need to set them on the right track. The liberal solution is that I should shut up and write a check!

Should I go to see Noah?

The new Noah movie has been out for a while and I've debated with myself over whether I should go to see it. On the one hand, I hear it's no where near a fair representation of the Genesis narrative. On the other hand, what's wrong with seeing a movie that's not really Bible based? After all, some other movies I've seen lately include The Hobbit and The Hunger Games. Those weren't biblical movies either.  I went to see them simply to be entertained. As I pondered this dilemma, it occurred to many that other people are surely considering this same question. So why not share my thoughts to help them decide?

I first heard about the Noah movie being made about two years ago and I blogged about it then (read it here). In that post I wondered, “will the movie bring out the real message behind Noah? Will it be about a righteous God Who judges sin? Will people know that God has provided salvation to those who believe in Him? Will they see the Ark as a picture of Jesus?” What was I thinking? I mean, I know I doubted it then but did I seriously even think it might? Of course it wasn't going to. In the movie, Noah is not a righteous man at all. He's an ultra-liberal who thinks it's his job to save the “innocent” animals of the world and insure the global-warming causing, human race is terminated. He even wants to murder his grandchildren. Radical environmentalism? Check. Abortion? Check. Straw man caricatures of the Bible? Check. Yep, it's all there in this movie. I must said I nailed it when I said, “I guess it's not always about money for liberals. They have their standards too. Some just can't bring themselves to make a movie portraying the Bible in a favorable light no matter how successful the movie might be.”

But like I've already said, I don't just go to see movies that are biblically themed or biblically accurate. Maybe this fictional story will be interesting. Maybe the special effects will be exciting. Maybe the action will be intense. However, judging by what I've heard from people who have actually seen the movie, this movie has none of that. Instead, it has a weak story that isn't saved by dazzling special effects – kind of like the second Matrix movie.

The majority of the people who've seen the Noah movie didn't like it. In typical, Hollywood style, the movie is loved by professional, liberal movie reviewers who hate anything Christian, while hated by the public at large. In this screen shot from “Rotten Tomatoes,” it shows how 76% of reviewers liked it yet only 47% of movie goers felt the same.

What bugs me the most is that this movie, which bears only a remote resemblance to the Genesis account, is still held out as a being a fair representation of the Bible. When I heard the movie advertised on the radio, it was followed by a disclaimer. The disclaimer I heard was a little different but the official text is as follows:

The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis. (source)

So there is the rub.  It's not just that it's not a biblical film; it's that it pretends to be a biblical film. Rather, it deceptively holds itself out as a biblical movie even though Aronofsky knows the movie is antithetical to the lessons of judgment and mercy taught in the biblical account. Let's face it, did God really want Noah to murder his grandchildren to insure the extinction of the human race? Is that a “value” which is a cornerstone of Christian faith?

Let's sum up: weak story, antithetical to christian-values, liberal propaganda. Should I go see the movie? I think the answer is obvious.

Earth Day 2013 AKA Radicals on Parade

I don't know if Earth Day has an “official” site, but Kathleen Rogers on this official-looking site billed Earth Day as “the largest secular event in the world.” I'd have to think about that one for a while. I don't know about the world but it's certainly not the largest, secular event in the US. I'm sure it ranks well behind Halloween, Independence Day, and probably even Cinco de Mayo. Still, it does get enough support that I could take a few moments to laugh at... er... I mean, write about it.

In the infancy of Earth Day, back in the 70s, the focus was on “over population.” It was feared that the earth did not have enough resources to support the three billion or so people who lived in the world back then so an early objective of Earth Day was to push for zero population growth. The idea of having children was booed by environmental advocates. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb and an early champion of Earth Day made these radical statements:

“[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” [The Population Bomb, pp. 130-131]

Of course, abortion was also one of the big issues of the 70s and liberals used population control as another reason to support their argument to allow abortion. Liberals often defend their radical agendas by saying, “it's for the children.” In the case of abortion, that doesn't quite have the same effect so they instead said, “it's for the planet.”

We now have doubled the population of the planet since Mr. Erlich wrote his book so all of his dire predictions have been proven false. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28) so He gave us a world capable of supporting many times the number of people who are alive now. The idea of purposefully limiting population growth is not only unnecessary, it's also a direct rebellion to God's plan.

Liberals also hate the free market and capitalism and so, over the years, they have used environmental concerns as a cudgel to beat down private property rights and for-profit endeavors. At first, radicals simply did things like chaining themselves to trees to prevent logging. I wonder if any of these nuts lived in houses built with lumber? Anyway, it's gotten worse over the years and now we are forced to save the environment or face criminal fines. We can't drill for oil in Alaska because there are caribou there. California farmers couldn't water their orchards due to the delta smelt. I can't buy a five gallon flush toilet or incandescent light bulbs because legislators believe these things are destroying the planet. Now the EPA even wants to fine (fleece?) cities and states for the rainwater that runs off of roads and highways.

Liberals have even used the environment to meddle in healthcare. For example, the Feds have banned over the counter inhalers used to treat asthma and have forced asthma suffers to buy more expensive, prescription-only inhalers. The reason: the over the counter inhalers contained CFCs.

On this Earth Day, the focus is “climate change.” It's simply a new spin on the old theme of forcing everyone to comply with liberal ideology by making everything seem to be about the environment. Liberals want to control everything that everyone does. Even something like eating meat is condemned because cow flatulence is supposedly destroying the ozone layer.

And I can't resist mentioning the evolutionary connection to Earth Day. A few years back, I posted this Oakland Zoo quote about their Earth Day celebration:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

You see, Earth Day advocates want everyone to believe we're all connected via evolution: people, pandas, and petunias – we're all the same.

Finally, Kathleen Rogers includes this quote in her article:

More than one billion people from almost every single country on earth will take an action in service to our planet.

What probably bothers me about Earth Day more than the liberal agenda on parade is the not-so-subtle idea of earth worship that seems to be going on. What exactly does Ms. Rogers mean when she says talks about acting “in service to our planet”? The Bible says that God gave us every green thing to be our food (Genesis 1:29). God gave man dominion over the birds and the fish and the beasts of the earth (Genesis 1:26). In other words, the earth was made to serve us; we were not made to serve the earth!

God gave us a wonderful world because He loves us. On this earth day, let's be good stewards over what God has given us but let's not glorify the earth. Instead, give glory to God for His providence!

Have a Christ-centered Earth Day!

Bishop E W Jackson's Message to Black Christians

I posted a video recently exposing the intolerance of liberals. Liberals could never attain the level of tolerance they claim to have because they're idea of tolerance is self refuting. They somehow think tolerance means accepting every view as equal. The irony is that they militantly oppose anyone who doesn't hold the same view of “tolerance” as them. So they don't tolerate intolerance! It's insane.

Their intolerance often displays itself in the form of old-fashioned racism. Liberalism has done more to harm black families than 400 years of slavery. Do you think I'm kidding? Let me point out a few, undeniable facts:

In some places in the US, there are more black babies aborted than born!¹ Since Roe v. Wade, tens of millions of black babies have been aborted. It's an American holocaust. Of those who are born, 73% are born outside of wedlock and destined to live their lives in poverty.² I've heard it said that welfare and child support checks have taken the place of a wage earning fathers in the home.

Never mind that the unemployment rate of blacks is nearly double that of whites. Never mind the drop out rates about black youths. Never mind the percentage of black families whose only income is government assistance. What concerns me most about their plight is their blind devotion to the very people who seek to keep them there. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats who only promise them more government assistance, longer unemployment benefits, and easier access to abortions.

How racist is it to tell people that they don't have the tools or means to get ahead? How helpful is it continuously say to someone he can't succeed unless you help him? How insulting is it to say to blacks that if a Republican gets elected, they will be returned to chains? How stereotypical is it to expect every black person to think only one way and, if he doesn't, he's reviled for being an “Uncle Tom” and accused of not acting black!

Democrats are happy to have created a group of people who live under the delusion that they cannot exist outside of the liberal plantation. At least one black pastor has had enough. In a YouTube video, Bishop E W Jackson tells black Christians to leave the Democrat party. He says it far more eloquently than I can so I urge you to watch his video below.

This should be a message to all Christians. Liberals are not our friends. We should welcome them to our churches, we should share the gospel with them, but we should not elect them to office where they can inflict their Godless agenda on us.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

Obama to Catholics: “To Hell With You”

A few months back, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines mandating that by the summer of 2012, all individual and group insurance plans must cover contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortion inducing drugs. Prior to the passage of Obama-care, one of the many criticisms of the plan was that it would ultimately violate the religious liberties of employers and individuals. The Administration assured us that the religious conscience of the people would be safe. We see now that was another lie.

In an editorial, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, had some hard hitting words about the Catholic response to the new guidelines. Here are some highlights from his column:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease; mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures, including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to choose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; and forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.

So-called exemption

Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process. 

This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone — not only Catholics; not only people of all religions. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.

For our church this mandate would apply in virtually every instance where the Catholic Church serves as an employer. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity by forcing Catholic entities to provide contraceptive, sterilization coverage and even pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.There was a so-called “religious exemption” to the mandate, but it was so narrowly drawn that, as critics charged, Jesus Christ and his apostles would not fit the exemption. The so-called exemption would only apply to the vast array of Catholic institutions where the following applied:

• Only Catholics are employed;• The primary purpose of the institution or service provided is the direct instruction in Catholic belief;• The only people served by the institution are those who share Catholic religious tenets. (Try to fit this in with our local Catholic Charities, which serves 80,000 every year without discrimination according to faith. It would be impossible!)

Practically speaking, under the proposed mandate there would be no “religious exemption” for Catholic hospitals, universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies such as Catholic Charities. It could easily be determined that the “religious exemption” would not apply as well to Catholic high schools, elementary schools and parishes since many employ non-Catholics and serve both Catholic students and, through social outreach, many who do not share our religious beliefs. Such a narrow “religious exemption” is simply unprecedented in federal law.

Kathleen Sebelius, and through her the Obama administration, have said “To hell with you” to the Catholic faithful of the United States.

• To hell with your religious beliefs,• To hell with your religious liberty,• To hell with your freedom of conscience.

We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under.

I could not have said it any better. I've said before that I'm not a Catholic. However, it's no stretch of the imagination to see how these guidelines are a threat to the religious liberty of all believers. It even erodes the rights of non-believers since it establishes a precedent that the government's agenda for a better society trumps individual liberties.

This is another call to arms. We need to let our legislators know that we will not stand still while our God given rights are trampled by the very government we established to protect them. We need to challenge this in the courts and we need to defeat its advocates at the ballot box.

Hopefully, November of 2012 will be the end of the Obama administration and the beginning of the repeal of Obama-care.

Liberals Have it All Backwards

In my last post, I talked about how liberals think that when the government cuts spending it costs you money. The reality is that since it's our money they're spending, we're truly saving money when they spend less. This got me to thinking; liberals have a backward way of thinking about a lot of issues. Here are a few other examples.

• Nancy Pelosi seems to think that paying people who aren't working will somehow create jobs.

• Louise Slaughter claims that if we don't allow women to kill their babies then we want to kill women.

• Hillary Clinton says that we can't let parents have school vouchers because some parents might send their kids to a white supremacy school but mothers should have the choice to abort their children.

• Liberals want to legalize marijuana and ban salt.

• Liberals want to ban toys from happy meals but give out condoms in schools.

• Liberals think that giving tax breaks to businesses doesn't create jobs but giving them billion dollar bailouts will.

• Politically conservative Mel Gibson made some vulgar comments to his girlfriend while drunk and was fired by his talent agency for being a misogynist. The liberal Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl yet went on to receive three Academy Awards.

• Republican Trent Lott makes a complimentary comment during Strom Thurman's 100^th birthday and loses his leadership position for being a racist. Democrat Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK and receives a 100% rating from the NAACP.

I could go on but there's no need. These few examples more than prove my point. I'm not a psychiatrist or anything but liberalism seems to be a mental disorder. I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” I guess Isaiah had liberals even back in his time.

Exodus 21:22-23: Does the Bible Consider the Unborn a Baby?

It's typical of liberal Christians or even liberal non-Christians to attempt to use the Bible to support their liberal views. Ordinarily, they wouldn't concern themselves with the word of God but when they can find a passage they believe supports their cause, they champion it like – well, like it's Scripture. They do this because they know conservative Christians seriously regard the Bible and if the liberal can convince the conservative that the Bible is on the liberal's side, it should settle the matter.

One such argument used by liberals concerns abortion. Conservative Christians, of course, recognize correctly that the unborn are still created in the image of God and deserve protection as much as any other person. Liberals justify their position on abortion by claiming the unborn child isn't really a person. The Bible certainly doesn't support their extreme view but I've heard a few liberals cite Exodus 21:22-23:

If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

By citing this verse, they argue that even the Bible recognizes a difference between the unborn child and the life of the woman. In this passage, if a man strikes a woman and she “miscarries”, he has to pay a fine. But if she dies, it becomes a capital offense and his own life is forfeit. At first glance, their argument seems to have merit. However, as is always the case, it's a good idea to look up a passage for yourself before trusting a liberal's cite.

I'm not a Bible scholar or anything but when I first heard this argument, I had to search a while before finding the translation being used. The above passage is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Now, tell me the truth, have you ever heard of the Douay-Rheims Bible? It is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate (as opposed to a translation from the original language into English). The fact that it is a translation of a translation presents more than a few problems and I honestly can't recommend it as an acceptable translation.

When we read the same passage in more mainstream translations, the liberal argument loses all credibility:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.
(New International Version ©2011)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.
(New American Standard Bible)

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(King James Version)

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.
(English Standard Version)

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(American Standard Version)

We can see in these more familiar translations that this passage is more in line with the conservative position. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, and she delivers her child prematurely, he must pay a fine. However, if the woman or the child dies, he must give a life for a life.

It's rather pathetic that liberal theologians, who hold little regard for the Bible anyway, attempt to use the Bible to support a position so contrary to God's will. And to use such an obscure translation is not simply intellectual laziness but outright dishonesty. They had to hunt out this passage while intentionally overlooking the rendering in more trusted versions.

What is almost equally as sad is that too many Christians fall victim to this tactic. When I've seen this con employed online, the simple rebuttal is to point out the same passage in a more mainstream translation. Instead, I've seen Christians falling all over themselves trying to spin a pro-life position in this flawed translation. I suspect they never stopped to look in the Bible for themselves.

The Bible is very clear in its position on the unborn. God is pro-life! His clear word is not undone by the bad translation of a single verse.

Sanctity of Life Day, 2011

A Nation of Wimps!

Last night, on Face Book, my former pastor and Face Book friend posted a video of Gianna Jessen, a woman whose mother attempted to abort her but she survived the abortion and was born alive. It was a touching video of her giving a pro-life speech in Melbourne Australia (you can watch it here). It prompted me to look for similar stories on YouTube. Apparently this has happened on other occasions as well. A woman named Melissa Ohden posted a short video describing a similar experience (here). Their testimonies are moving and rebut the lie that abortion advocates are “pro-choice.” Certainly the babies in these abortions are not given a choice and it's wonderful to hear these intended abortion victims give a voice to the millions more who have been killed.

Abortion is a plague that haunts America. It is our holocaust. A majority of people identify themselves as “Pro-life” and overwhelmingly believe that abortion should be illegal or legal in only certain circumstances. Yet we either lack the will, the political courage, or the political savvy to do anything about it. We have let the fringe minority set the agenda and now have abortion on demand. If a woman wishes, she can, for any reason, have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy.

But my main point of this post isn't to talk about abortion.

I also came a across a video series (parts 1, 2, and 3) about a woman named Carly who had an abortion and regretted it. Near the beginning of the first video, she talks about how she and her boyfriend became sexually active at the very beginning of their relationship. Certainly one component in a woman's decision to have an abortion is the relationship with the father. Many women having abortions aren't married to the father. But then again, many women having babies aren't married to the father. The logical conclusion is that many women are having sex with men they aren't married to. Our society glorifies sex and ignores consequence.

But neither is my main point about out of wedlock sex or illegitimate births.

The main point of my post is the role of men in the above examples. In the cases of the abortion survivors, what were the fathers doing while the mothers were trying to abort their children? In the case of Carla, we know what the father was doing: he was being a selfish jerk pressuring Carla into having an abortion while he himself was too scared to walk into the abortion clinic with her. And what were they thinking while they were having sex with these girls? Did it not occur to them that they might make these women pregnant?

I read a book a few years ago called, The Power of Myth. Even though the author, Joseph Campbell, was an atheist, he did raise a least one good point. In many cultures around the world, boys of certain ages are subjected to a rite of passage where, afterward, they are treated as men. Among Jews, for example, there is a bar mitzvah. It is a defining moment in their lives – a clear distinction where they understand they need to stop acting like boys and start acting like men. Like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:11, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Here in the US, we have no formal tradition where this occurs. This is why we have adult men who still act like teenagers. There are certain milestones in our lives that would be good candidates for a rite of passage (turning 18, graduating from high school, etc) but in many of these cases, the older generation continues to treat the man like a boy. If an 18 year old man were to talk to his parents about marriage, they would likely tell him he is still too young. They might tell him to wait, go to college, save his money, and then get married at some unidentified moment in the future when he is “ready.” In my opinion, this only perpetuates adolescence. Instead of getting married, the 18-year-old will heed his parents advice about marriage and simply continue having sex with his girlfriend-of-the-moment. And what is the parents' advice about having sex? Probably something like, “Well, you know how kids are. They're going to have sex.” What a cop out! Instead of telling them it's OK to act like kids, why don't we tell them to grow up and start acting like adults?!

We are a nation of wimps. Our men refuse to act like men. They're old enough to work, drive, have sex, and do all the things a man does but they refuse to take on the responsibility of being a man. They want a life without consequences. The out of wedlock sex, illegitimate births, and abortions are merely symptoms of their childish behavior. “Wimps” is certainly an appropriate description but I guess I could also call them “babies.” Actually, “babies” is a little too tame since babies tend to cry over little things. Here, we are talking about matter of importance.

What else might we call them? “Idiots” works. I mean, even a simpleton can understand that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Obviously some men haven't figured that out. They can't think beyond the 15 minutes in bed. Besides pregnancy, they are also risking contracting and spreading STDs so these men are demonstrably stupid. “Selfish” comes to mind too. I don't care what they say, these men have only one thing on their mind – their own gratification. They don't care one whit about the women they are having sex with and if they claim they do, then I also call them “liars.” If they really cared for the women beyond sex, then why don't they just marry them?

“Cowards” might be the strongest word I could use to describe these men. That Carol's boyfriend wouldn't walk with her into the abortion clinic didn't make him a coward; he was already a coward and that act merely made it evident. These men are only pretending to be men while they abuse women to slake their own lusts. They're afraid to do those things that truly identify someone as a man: things like taking responsibility, making a commitment, providing for a family, raising your children, and being a role model.

Yet even worse than cowards, these men are “sinners.” God made marriage an earthly model of our relationship with Christ. Men are supposed to love their wives like Christ loves His Church and gave His life for it (Ephesians 5:25). Christ endured the cross to redeem His Bride but these men surf the net for porn. They aren't even interested in a “bride.” They aren't the shepherds of their family like Jesus is but they are the thieves and robbers who only come to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10). They're also “idolaters” who put the needs of their own flesh above obedience to God.

Lest anyone should think I'm just being proud and judgmental, I assure you that I was young and dumb once too. It was only by the grace of God that I grew up before becoming a victim of my own stupidity. Take it from someone who knows. My advice to all of you is repent. Show some responsibility. Stop thinking of yourself and start thinking of others. Be a man!!

Is Fox News Culpable?

OK, I admit it – I was watching Keith Olbermann again. Even though the guy is a rabidly hostile liberal who has been known to get my ire up, there’s still a certain comedy factor in watching him. It’s sort of like watching a YouTube video of a professional ice-skater who falls down 5 times during a performance. This guy just has no clue of what he’s doing. Anyway, he’s now holding Fox News (Bill O’Riley in particular) accountable for the shooting death of abortionist, Dr. Tiller.

On his show, Countdown, Olbermann played a montage with video clips of Fox News reporters discussing Tiller including a clip of O’Riley calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer.” According to Olbermann, it’s this kind of rhetoric that incited suspect Scott Roeder to carry out the murder. Never mind that one news source reported that Roeder has a criminal past and “has expressed anti-abortion opinions on sympathetic Web sites.” Never mind that there are about 2 million hits on Google discussing Tiller – including sites like chargetiller.com (which has since been taken down). No, according to Olbermann, he didn’t get the idea until he heard O’Riley talking about it! Let me ask you, Olbermann, could it simply be that the doctor had done 60,000 abortions that might have inflamed Roeder to take action?

It should go without saying that I condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller. Vigilantism is not how we exercise justice in the US. And a violent act like this certainly does nothing to help reduce the number of abortions but actually hurts the Pro-Life movement.

It’s obvious that Olbermann is using this tragic event to advance his war against Fox News. It’s shameful the way he’s acting. If he wants to equate reporting on controversial topics with inciting violence then I would say Olbermann has blood in his hands as well.

How many times have we heard people on the left accuse Bush of starting an “illegal war”? Ever heard Cheney called a “war criminal”? And certainly one hot topic in the news has been the flap over the interrogation techniques used shortly after 9/11. The left is quite to characterize them as torture and demand that the people in question be held accountable for their “crimes.”

Just last month, in a commentary directed to President Obama, Olbermann had this to say regarding the “torture”:

Indeed we must [resist the forces which divide us], Mr. President. And the forces of which you speak are the ones lingering — with pervasive stench — from the previous administration. Far more than a criminal stench, Sir. An immoral one. One we cannot let be re-created… This country has never "moved forward with confidence" without first cleansing itself of its mistaken past… [t]hat means prosecuting all those involved in the Bush administration's torture of prisoners.

There you go, Olbermann condemned “all those involved” in the torture of prisoners. Now someone has taken him up on it. The Drudge Report said today:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another. Police believe that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, shot the men "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel." [emphasis added]

Didn’t the people on the right say that if we release information about the interrogation of terrorist suspects that it might put our troops into harms way? It looks like now it may have happened. Mr. Olbermann, when can we expect your apology for your incendiary words?

You folks at MSNBC need to cut it out already. This feeble attempt to lay blame on Fox News for merely reporting the activities of a serial abortionist is beyond the pale.

Hey, wait a minute! Maybe the big three networks were all in on the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and only reported the incident to inspire Ruby to kill Oswald! Excuse me while I call Oliver Stone.

America is Mostly Pro-Life, But That’s Old News

A new Gallup Poll released says that, since Gallup began asking the question, a majority of Americans identify themselves as “pro-life.” Well, I hate to break it to Gallup but America has been pro-life long before now – many just didn’t call themselves “pro-life.” We can see this when we start breaking down the numbers within the poll when the pollsters asked when abortion should be legal/illegal.

22% of the people surveyed said abortion should be legal under any circumstance. These are the people who are truly “pro-choice” (that is, pro-abortion). They believe a woman should have unrestricted access to an abortion for any reason she chooses. To them, abortion can be used simply for birth control. It’s an extreme position but it is to this minority that the Democrat Party caters.

Another small group (15%) believes abortion should be legal under most circumstances. Perhaps they could also be considered “pro-choice” (that is, pro-abortion) but they at least recognize that some abortions are extreme (perhaps things like late term or partial birth abortions). Yet even when combined with the group above both of these groups amount to only 37% of the population.

On the other hand, 60% of the people surveyed believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or legal only in a few (probably in cases of rape or incest). So, by a margin of nearly 2 to 1, Americans hold to pro-life values even if they don’t identify themselves as such.

The real surprise to me in the poll was that the number of Christians who identified themselves as pro-life was only 59%! I know that liberalism has worked its way into many mainstream denominations but this number should be 100%. For Christians, there should be no doubt where we should stand on this issue. Now I know there are some Christians out there who would say, “I am personally opposed abortion but I believe women should have the right to choose an abortion.” However, this lame defense is as sophomoric as saying, “I’m personally opposed to slavery but I believe people should have the right to choose to own slaves.” If something is wrong then it’s wrong and we shouldn’t tolerate an abomination like abortion under the guise of liberty.

Getting back to the poll for a moment, I believe this poll also spells doom for the radical left in Washington. Folks like Obama and Pelosi are governing like they have a mandate. I’m sure we all remember that Obama ran a campaign promising “change.” That’s a rather ambiguous slogan and I’m sure his abortion agenda is not the kind of change people had in mind. Obama has said that women “should not be punished with a baby” and, to that end, has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. He has already lifted the ban on Federal funding of abortions so our tax dollars are now going to pay for abortions around the world.

Many people are not single issue voters but abortion is one of those issues that people are passionate about. The numbers speak for themselves. The more Obama and the extreme-left go down this road, the more they are going to alienate a majority of Americans. You can only be in-your-face about the issue for so long before people react. Let’s not wait until 2012; let’s start by getting the liberals out of Congress next year!

What’s on American’s Minds?

After I published my last post on Obama’s honorary degree from Notre Dame, I was trying to get ideas for another blog. There are so many things in the news right now: abortion (because of Obama’s visit to Notre Dame), water-boarding (and Pelosi’s lies about it), record high unemployment, government take-over of the auto industry, and the list goes on and on. While thinking about it, I noticed on Yahoo’s home page they have a list of the day’s top-10 searches. Aha, I thought, here’s a list of things Americans have on their minds. But after looking at the things on the list, I soon realized Americans aren’t interested in the same things the news media publishes.

On the top-10 list are:

1) Ayelet Zurer. Who? Is she some foreign leader or perhaps a congress woman I hadn’t heard of? No. Come to find out, she’s an Israeli-born movie actress staring in the new Ron Howard flick, Angels & Demons. OK, so that’s sort of current news I guess.

2) Deborah Gibson. The pop teen singer from the 80’s? You’ve got to be kidding me! I think I saw her hosting a one-hit-wonder show on VH1 a while back but other than that, I didn’t know she was doing anything. She’s number 2? Oh well.

3) Easy Crock Pot Recipes. Hmmm. At least I can empathize with this one. My wife recently bought one of those magic-bullet type blenders and I searched “blender recipes” so I know where these people are coming from. Still, to be the 3rd most searched item is a little surprising.

Rounding out the top-10 are:

4) Bridal Shower Ideas
5) Jane Campion
6) Will Ferrell
7) Blink 182
8) Bipolar Disorder
9) College Basketball
10) Travel Insurance

Perhaps I’m taking this news/politics stuff a little too seriously. Oh well! “To each his own,” I always say. I’ll continue to blog about things I think are important and people will still continue to read what they think are important.

I have an idea. Perhaps I should write a blog about Ayelet Zurer and Deborah Gibson exchanging easy crock pot recipes. It might not be interesting but at least my blog will show up in all the Yahoo searches!

Healing the Divisions of Religion?

Obama spoke today at the Notre Dame University commencement and was honored with an honorary law degree. I’m not sure exactly which act he has done that was being honored but he was honored nonetheless. Before being awarded his honorary degree, Obama was recognized with these words:

… The University of Notre Dame Confers the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on the 44th president of the United States, whose historic election opened a new era of hope in a country long divided by its history of slavery and racism. A community organizer who honed his advocacy for the poor, the marginalized and the worker in the streets of Chicago, he now organizes a larger community, bringing to the world stage a renewed American dedication to diplomacy and dialogue with all nations and religions committed to human rights and the global common good. Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.

Did you catch that last part? “Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.”

Since when are Christians interested in healing the divisions of religions and politics? Why should we be? I respectfully remind Notre Dame of the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Christ didn’t heal divisions – He made them and He didn’t water down His message to appeal to the masses. You’re either with Christ or you’re against Him (Matthew 12:30). Jesus didn’t just speak the truth, He was the Truth (John 14:6). To compromise on even one point on order to win converts would make the truth a lie. I could almost understand the argument that we need to give a hearing to different points of view. But do we have to honor them? Obama is perhaps the most militant, pro-abortion politician in Washington today. For a strongly Catholic and (supposedly) pro-life institution to award him an honorary degree should be a scandal.

And now there are some in the GOP who believe we should abandon our conservative principals and move the party toward “the center.” Excuse me? Do they mean we should be more like Obama? What exactly do they think the objective is: to win people or to win elections? I’m sorry but I don’t go for the Arlin Specter model of politics (“if you can’t beat them, join them”). I prefer to stand on my principals and try to win others to my point of view. If anyone is persuaded, great; if he refuses, then I continue without him.

“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14). In other words, there’s no room in the truth for a “big tent.”

It’s a Black and White Thing

Sometimes, I just can’t figure people out. As I write this, we’re less than 48 hours away from the first polls opening and several surveys from different states still show up to 6% of the voters are still “undecided.” What exactly are they waiting for to make up their mind?

This election should be black and white – and I’m not talking about the race of the candidates. Obama is the most liberal Senator in congress and, by far, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president. McCain isn’t the most conservative candidate to come down the pike but next to Obama he’s another Reagan.

Just compare the candidates on several mainstream issues:

Abortion:

Obama is radically pro-abortion. His extreme views go well beyond they typical “pro-choice” ideas of many abortion advocates. While he served in the IL Senate, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” was introduced to prevent doctors from denying care to babies who were born alive after botched abortions. Obama voted against the bill 3 times. Obama also supports the abominable practice of “partial birth abortions.”

“McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.” I told you that McCain is no Reagan but he’s at least closer to the right side of this issue.

The Gay Agenda:

Obama is a friend to gays. He supports the adoption of children by gay couples and opposes any ban on gay marriage. Consider this quote from the “Gay City News”

“Obama supports full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, while New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton advocates getting rid of only the section denying federal recognition to legal same-sex marriages…. Arizona Republican Senator John McCain voted for DOMA, supported an unsuccessful Arizona amendment against same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, and has to date opposed the federal marriage amendment, but said he might change his view if it became necessary-for example, if DOMA were repealed.”

Need I say more?

Judicial Activism:

McCain strongly opposes judges making laws from the bench. Obama’s now famous radio interview has him lamenting that courts didn’t get more involved in the redistribution wealth.

The Second Amendment:

McCain has been endorsed by the NRA for his support of the Second Amendment. He recently fought against Washington DC’s ban on handguns. You might recall when Obama, while pandering to a San Francisco audience, said that PA (and other Midwest citizens) cling to their “guns and religion.”

Taxes:

You’ve seen Joe the plumber. You’ve heard Biden’s remarks. The Obama plan is one of socialism disguised as “fairness,” “patriotism,” and “spreading the wealth.” If you recall, Clinton used to call more taxes, “investments.”

The list could go on and on. These guys are complete opposites. Why does anyone need to think twice about how to vote? There is no doubt or shades of gray between the two; the difference is black and white!

The Studied Contempt of Planned Parenthood

A while back, I wrote about the transparent attempt of retailers to de-Christianize Christmas. I think it’s humorous the extent some irreligious people will go to “not to offend” anyone (such as calling Christmas trees, “family trees”). But Planned Parenthood (PP) isn’t just trying to make Christmas a generic holiday; they’re going out of their way to offend Christians.

LifeNews.com has reported that Planned Parenthood has made available pro-abortion holiday cards (even I won’t call these things “Christmas cards”) with the message, “Choice on Earth.”

The cards are obviously meant to be a blasphemy of Luke 2:14, often paraphrased as, “Peace on Earth.” Planned Parenthood is being pretty in-your-face about it too. The article quotes former PP President, Gloria Feldt, as saying group supporters were “energized by the vicious criticism of our holiday card.”

This belies the true attitude of Planned Parenthood. They aren’t a caring organization trying to “help women.” They are a godless organization, obsessed with infanticide and driven by greed and liberal ideology.

Apparently, PP does this kind of stuff every year but the attention paid to them has waned as of late. I guess that’s encouraging news. I’m just thankful PP wasn’t around in Bethlehem! If they had found a young, unmarried girl like Mary, engaged to a poor carpenter, displaced from her home and sleeping in a stable - they would have fallen all over each other to make her have an abortion!

More Clinton-Speak

With all the fuss lately about Mike Huckabee’s religious views, I did an internet search to see what some of the other candidates are being asked about their views. Now, I’m sure that somewhere on the net, someone has written something about what Hillary Clinton believes but I really couldn’t find anything outside of the blogs. But I did find this interesting quote made by Hillary at a NARAL luncheon.

“I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

Isn’t that interesting? Out of all the people Hillary Clinton has met (remember, she said “thousands and thousands”) not one of them is pro-abortion? I wonder if she’s ever met someone who’s actually had an abortion. Wouldn’t you consider someone who’s had an abortion to be “pro-abortion”? I mean if someone were truly against abortion she probably wouldn’t have had one herself. Right? So someone who has had an abortion probably thinks it’s OK to actually have an abortion – not just OK to have the “right to choose” an abortion. It’s because of double talk like this that someone coined the term, “Clinton-speak.” Remember when Bill said, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”?

But you know what I found to be even more interesting in this quote? It’s when she said, “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family.” So, let me get this straight - we should trust the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family. That’s what she said. Read it again. She further said we should not “[entrust] that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” Again, I want to be clear. Do not entrust this to any authority of the government in any regard. Well, I don’t see how she could be much clearer than that.

But let’s see just how pro-choice Senator Clinton really is. Read the following account of a speech she made to the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp., (Newsday.com):

"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Clinton said. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'"As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won't stand for it."

So, when it comes to terminating a pregnancy (i.e. killing the unborn child) we should trust the decision of the mother to do what’s best for herself and her family. But when it comes to choosing a school for our children, parents just shouldn’t be trusted since they might send their kids to a white supremacist school. No, in that case Sen. Clinton is afraid the parents might make the wrong choice for their family.

To Hillary, being “pro-choice” means being “pro-abortion.” The only choices liberals would “allow” parents to have are the choices they feel are appropriate. An abortion? OK. Go to a Christian school? No. It’s an elitist attitude. It’s Hillary Clinton’s vision for America.

My Endorsement for the Republican Primary

It’s official - I’m endorsing Mike Huckabee as the Republican candidate for President, 2008. I've looked at him, his statements, and his record and he holds the same views as I do on nearly every issue. What's more, he's consistently been conservative throughout his career. Here are some of the hot issues and where he stands:

Faith & Politics: “My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives."

Abortion: “I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.”

Health Care: “The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes.”

Taxes: “The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now.”

Immigration: “Governor Huckabee knows that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.”

The War on Terror: “I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society,… As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.”

Marriage: “I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Education: “I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.” [OK, so he kind of blew it on this one. Why only public school choice?]

What more can I ask for? The guy is right on. And he's even got Chuck Norris endorsing him - how cool is that? Let’s hear it for Mike. Mike Huckabee, 2008!