Pro-Life Is Not Single-Issue

Or, why using a pro-life criteria as a single-issue voting guide is acceptable and responsible in the American Republic.

A fellow-student of my wife’s at her well-known Christian school wrote a note stating her belief that Obama is a better Christian and will be a better President than McCain. It was discouraging to read.

This makes the second person who I’d've thought would be able to see beyond the incessant, sycophantic cheerleading by the MSM and the carefully tailored lies of the Obama campaign to the real depth of his deception and would not support him for that.

I guess an audacious hope in change for the sake of hope or something similar really is something for which people yearn to such an extent they are willing to kneel at the baals of our culture and join the thronging hordes chasing the dream of socialism.

I thought I had one more generation before America had it’s watershed moment of decision over communism.

We can’t choose our situations or the perils which will beset our life, we can only do our best in the situations with which we are faced. As when Frodo faced with despair his imminent doom:

Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.
Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil.

But to the subject at hand:

This student, writing in her note, commented that she had people in her life who would not vote for Obama under any circumstances due to his support of Abortion. She considered this view too narrow and not a careful approach to the broader issues at hand.

She further commented, as noted earlier, that per her reading of Proverbs, Obama was living his Christian witness on the campaign to an extent she’d not seen elsewhere.

Two questions: Is a single-issue pro-life position too narrow a view and is Obama living a Christian witness on the campaign trail?

The abortion battle which divides much of our society so drastically is so divisive and drastic because it is so very important, and those who have considered it at all either believe it is extremely important for many reasons beyond those just on it’s face or they are decieved.

Suitable to the depth of the issue (not the complexity, abortion is not complex: the baby is either dead or alive), there are a plethora of positions on abortion, all along the continuum from “No, not ever” to “The more dead the merrier, the later the better”. I can understand and sympathize with those who have honestly experienced a “for the life of the mother” situation and have their ideas formed that way. But were my wife in that position (though the percentage chances of that are incredibly miniscule), I would only allow myself the position that it is an accepted risk and part of life that we go through, and that were it necessary for me or my wife to give up our lives for the sake of our child, that is the correct thing to do. Pragmatically, it is the measuring of potential: my child has greater potential than I. Theologically, Jesus died for me, God’s child, I can die for my child. Being a man it is easy to dismiss my argument as being ill-considered and shallow and prone to revisiting when I’m actually faced with that. But the truth is there, and I could not live with another decision.

Most average people believe the lies that abortion is intended only for rare cases of parental abuse, rape, incest, and the like, and therefore support it for those reasons. Some people recognize it for it’s inherent racism: whole generations of black and other minority children cut down like so much government-subsidized and unwanted wheat.

The real militants take it is a watershed for womens rights, making motherhood as much a choice as fatherhood.

Only the cold-killers go all the way: Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any purpose. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Legislature AFTER it was ammended to included the obligatory protections for cases of rape and incest at his request. This is not a case of one random vote against, it is a case of him realizing the political expediency of something (support for such an obviously good piece of legislation) and then changing his mind for the sake of his personal belief that children are only to be kept when they’re wanted.

Obama further supported and defended a hospital which was found to be condoning the practice of leaving unwanted babies delivered during botched abortions unattended in storage closets until they died.

Obama is for, and this is not a debatable or arguable issue, the allowable killing of babies who have survived the horrifics of an abortion and are living outside of their mother.

Right now we call this murder.

What kind of man believes this is good? What kind of president would that man be who believe such a thing?

Human dignity was a term this student used to describe the totality of Obama’s ideas. His ideals were better for human dignity.

If we as a society believe it’s OK to kill babies AFTER they’re born, have we ANY acceptable or reasonable perception of human dignity?

A man who would not work to save a baby does not understand the magnificence and wonder of human life. A man who does not understand these basic aspects of human dignity has no dignity himself.

It is not a small view or a narrow perception to believe that one who does not support the protection of human life, especially that of the weakest and most innocent among us, is not a fit man to be president.

Is Obama living a “Christian” witness on the campaign trail?

He denies that children are a blessing from the Lord. Or if believes that, he doesn’t want that blessing.

He finds it necessary to lie about his past and about his views and opinions on issues. He was not raised in the middle class but by his extremely successful bank president grandmother. Nothing against him or his grandmother for that. I would not think less of him, were he to only not seek to hide it and lie about it.

He claims that it was deregulation which allowed the banking failures when it was his direct actions and work which contributed towards the protection of Fannie and Freddie from scrutiny and increased regulation at the hands of the Bush administration and John McCain years ago which may have averted this crisis we are now experiencing.

He claims that taking a position on the beginning of human life is “above his pay grade”, again failing to stand up, as a Christian man ought to have done, in protection of the innocent and unborn among us and denying that his actions, speaking much louder than his words, show that he believes human life begins when the parents decides they want the child and not a moment sooner.

He associates with people who support the disruption of society and killing of people in terrorist acts and who when given opportunity to recant, say they did not do enough.

He spends 20 years in the pews of a church which has more in common ideologically with Marxism than Christianity as Jesus modeled it.

This is not hidden fact or obfuscated information. It is all readily available to those who would listen.

I am not to judge because I will be judged with the same measure I have measured with, but I can observe based on the evidence before me and draw conclusions.

I just don’t understand.

The Public Have An Insatiable Curiosity…

…to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.

~Oscar Wilde

This is worth knowing…

Happy Birthday by Piper

UPDATE: I got this from my wife, who’d posted it on Facebook. She let me know she found it on the 4Simpsons blog.

Priorities Of Preservation

There is a push today to limit human suffering, to prevent any pain from occurring at all. This cringing drive is so rabid that a father sues his daughters’ school when she is stung by a bee on the school yard. There are schools refusing to allow recess, there are schools sanitizing their play equipment, removing anything which may remotely cause any risk. The schools don’t have a choice, the parents will sue them out of existence if their children encounter the slightest discomfort.

This issue here is contained in the fundamental difference in perspective cause by a proper understanding of mans inherent value before a creator God. A humanist will not

Compare this to the lifestyle lived by many Christians seeking to save the soul and the mind. In God’s design the body is temporary, it dies, but the soul is immortal, it is freed from the body by death and lives forever. To a Christian, more important than the body is the soul. A Christian may be called to give up their life, literally or figuratively, to save peoples’ souls. A Christian does not discount the value of a body. You find Christians at the forefront of most of the humanitarian efforts around the world, seeking to protect the bodies of millions of human lives, regardless of whether or not those being protected are Christian or not. The Christian seeks to preserve the body because under God we are all equally valuable, and because the body is the corporeal home of a soul which either needs saving or has a life to live and purposes yet to accomplish.

The world seeks to preserve the body, while summarily dismissing the mind, allowing anything whatsoever to creep its way into the receptive, untrained recesses. And even then they desire to allow anything we want to be used on our body, so long as we do the choosing. We can choose abortion, we can choose drugs, we can choose tattoos, just so long as we do the choosing. It is a matter of control. God is God, He holds choice in His hands. He allows us to choose all the time, but there are many times He chooses for us,for His glory, for our good. Mankind does not want God to choose for us. All of nature are God’s tools, and He wields Nature for the furthering of His plans. As we seek to limit the influence of God over our lives we will find Nature rising up and thwarting our plans, exerting His control over us.

I love butterflies. I have lots of experience with butterflies. I worked over the course of 2 or 3 consecutive summers for a local butterfly farm in my home town. We bred and raised monarch butterflies and sold them for weddings funerals, graduations, research, etc… There is a crucial stage of every butterflies development when the caterpillar has grown to the right maturity level it crawls to the underside of the leaf in the wild or our special rearing containers in the lab and in a weird jerking dance encloses itself in a chrysalis. The caterpillar goes through a metamorphosis, a fundamental change in it’s very nature and emerges and beautiful and brilliant butterfly. The escape from the chrysalis is one of the most important passages in its brief life. Without this struggle the butterfly will die. With the metamorphosis complete the chrysalis turns transparent and the orange and black wings are scrunched against the body in the little space left by the bulging abdomen of the butterfly. The butterfly braces itself against the chrysalis wall and pushes until the skin of the chrysalis breaks at the butterflies shoulders. The butterfly pulls itself with great difficulty out of the chrysalis shell and hangs from it, pumping its wings slowly it pushes the fluids from it’s distended abdomen into its wings, inflating them slowly until they are stiff and straight.

If the butterfly were to fall too easily out of the chrysalis, it would not have the strength to pump its wings full of the fluid. The stunted wings would hang limply in a bundle at the doomed insects side and it will die. There is not an option here. The butterfly either engages in an intense and painful struggle or it dies.

We as humans need pain and need struggles to grow many times. Pain and discomfort serve many purposes and there is no way I can explore all of them here. Pain can mean we’re human and we live in a physical world. It is a sensation, a feeling. A bee sting means that we offended a bee and he is willing to give his life in order to offend us a little. Pain can be a warning. A hot stove burns us and we are careful not to put out hands there again. Pain can be growth. The aches and pains of childhood as our bodies stretch to new and unfamiliar heights are not bad, but merely a sign that we’ll not be looking quite so far up at the rest of the world very much longer. Pain is not bad, it is an indicator, a sign.

And yet, in spite of the necessity and normalcy, the elite of our culture push for protection of the body. Control.

The Christian perspective is different. The soul and the mind are more important because they exist eternally. The body is just a temporary home.

Obama Pro Post-Birth Abortion

A friend’s status on Facebook spotted by American Texan caught my attention.

Now that we know who the two main options are in the United States presidential election, we need to know where they stand. This election will be, for conservatives, very much a lesser of two evils election.

I’m not one who likes to use that phrase, and I did not believe the GW Bush was a lesser evil in his elections. But given two people with very obvious track records, we are now faced with such a choice: between liberal McCain and socialist/communist Obama.

This gives conservatives a distinct disadvantage in this election: Democrats and Liberals and old hippies and young communists in the college systems of America have their perfect candidate and will be excited and mobilized easily. We have a lesser of two evils and will be dragging out feet. Thank you Mr. Medved.

Obama is pro post-birth abortion

Search google for “Obama post-birth abortion” and you see the details.

Two Conservatives lay out the details: Obama has voted repeatedly and consistently against so-called “born alive infant protection” acts which state that any homo sapien who is outside of the mother and alive is afforded all the protections of any other normal human.

Even the extremely liberal Senator Boxer from California has stated that such provisions do nothing to limit the rights defined by Roe v Wade and supports such measures.

If the stated purpose of regular and common abortion is to protect the health of the woman, then Obama is pro-murder and infanticide, not just abortion. By voting “present” and “no” in such votes, he has stated rather clearly his intention to support all forms of killing the innocent and weak among us for no greater purpose than convenience.

He has said he’d support such provisions when they include language specifying they do not infringe on the “rights” defined in Roe v Wade, but such provisions have also been before him to vote, and he has again voted “present” and refused to support them.

He wants to have his cake and eat it too, he supports one position  verbally but in action and application he has made his true intent and heart known very clearly.

For more information see Laura Echevarria’s list of Obama quotes on abortion.

Republican Politics

In the race for the Republican nomination, there’s something for everyone.

There’s a liberal who’s principled and experienced but still liberal.

There’s a populist who tickles ears and yet is Christian, courageous, and popular.

There’s a fiscal conservative with serious experience and a very public track-record who wore a dress (once, on camera), supports homosexual marriage, and is not in favor of criminalizing mothers who have abortions (a slight but significant difference from actually being pro-choice).

There’s some dude with two first names and some good ideas, but with serious inconsistency, and serious stupidity concerning international affairs and national security harking back to pre-WWII Republican isolationism.

There’s a conservative business leader and governor with a funny first name and movie-star looks who’s been consistent, if not amazing.

And there’s a movie star without the looks who’s been amazing, if not consistent. If only he acted like he wanted to win.

There are others, but they are also-ran’s or sometimer’s and not worth consideration at this stage in the game.

I don’t much care for the liberal, the populist, the fiscal, or Mr. Two Names. Though I could stomach the fiscal, were he to, by some stretch of imagination, win the nomination. The others I abhor for various reasons.

The liberal is neither a man of honor nor a man of principle. He has convenient and far-sighted-sounding reasons for his liberal attachments and accomplishments, but his willingness to sell the farm, ideologically speaking, is not the measure of a man. Personally, I admire and honor his courage in his past. But I fear to many years within the beltway, and those who have spent those years with him not recommending him in the droves we’d expect, are very indicative of a lack of character and ability.

The populist is just that. He uses his sincere (and I do not doubt, genuine) Christianity to excuse and/or support and champion decidedly non-Christian policies. God did not institute a welfare state (for individuals or corporations) in Theocratic Israel. Instead He instituted laws and policies which protected individuals from each other’s harm and sin. Claiming that “green” science is correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary does not lead me to believe he is either “wise as a serpent” or “harmless as a dove”. In fact, I would submit the populist is the inverse: He is wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent (taken ironically, of course).

Mr. Two Name needs no rebuttal as he is his own best revealing mirror. Dismissed out of hand is the best response to the majority of his supporters.

I’d like the movie star to catch a fire, but his lack of consistency heretofore is troubling, and I believe, more accurately indicative of who he’d be in office that what he’d be if he did catch a fire.

The man I voted for in my last election (for some time at least) in California is the leader. A realization I came to after considering what he does when there’s not supposed to be a camera around.

Here are a few articles from across the web which seem to me to be particularly salient and and appropriate to the candidates in this race.

•  The Trouble With McCain
  Jay Cost, Wall Street Journal

  Thirty-four Republicans have endorsed Mr. Romney, while just 24 have endorsed Mr. McCain. Furthermore, Mr. Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for Mr. McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of Mr. McCain’s résumé, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not.

• Hillary And MLK
  John McWhorter, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]here she was on “Meet the Press” Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson’s masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama — which is true.

• Barak Obama And Israel
  Ed Lasky, American Thinker

  One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism.

• Where They Stand
  Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]he political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–”I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.

“We Are Human Beings”

From Stand To Reason:

“[A]t all stages of our lives — from the embryonic through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages and into adulthood — we are human beings with dignity and the right to life. Our dignity does not come from having achieved a certain level of intellectual proficiency or even conscious awareness. … We have our dignity in virtue of the kind of entity we are: that is human being, a creature with a rational nature. And we became that when we came to be.”
~Dr. Robert George

Added by American Texan:

At no time is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being.
~Dr. Jerome Lejeune

Abortion Kills Humans

[myspacetv 13614928]

I wrote this back in August in response to a comment thread on an article on Dawn Patrol blog of Dawn Eden, author of The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On!

L, according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives, both very Pro-abort centers, around 1% of all US abortions are in cases of rape or incest, and around 6% are in cases of medical necessity.

Should the other 93% of children be killed because of “lifestyle” decisions, ie. the child is not convenient or wanted, in order to to protect 6 mothers from the CHANCE that there may be life threatening complications and 1 mother who may not have had a choice?

I recognize this is very personal to you, L, and I respect that. You may not accept my arguments because I’ll never bear children, I’m a man. But you must respect my arguments as we have respected yours because I am a human, and someday I intend to be a father.

The root issue here is, as has been noted before, responsibility. In your case it may not be, but for 93% of women in the sample it is. This does not negate your need, and others have mentioned that it is highly unlikely there will ever be a blanket law making all abortion illegal, especially in cases of medical necessity.

The purpose of sex is procreation, the pleasure is a byproduct, not a direct result. This is why I disagree morally with the homosexual act, but that is a whole different issue and can of worms that ought not be opened here. Once again, the purpose of the sex act is procreation. The more responsibility that is stripped away from the sex act, the more cases there will be of men taking advantage of women and the more cases there will be of single mothers facing the decision. This is demeaning to women, in it’s root, as men do not have to buy the pills or deal with the pain, or face the decision.

Abortion not only destroys life, it destroys good. Do you know for sure if that beautiful child whose very existence threatens your health is not destined to become a great artist or scientist?

Further, we all die sooner or later. There is no promise that we are to live until we are 80 or 90. We have no right to assume we are to live to any age. There is no promise the sun will rise for any of us tomorrow. Today some fatal accident may occur and some life may be snuffed out as quickly as that.

We cannot assume life but we must protect it, and take reasonable measures to prevent it from being taken. It is a sacred charge that I take very seriously that if I am to have children, as I hope to one day, my health, safety, and very life is considered secondary if their’s is in jeopardy. As a grown person who knows that each day lived is another day less that I have left, and comparing that to a child who may very well still have many years of immeasurable potential, their own life is of greater importance than mine. This is not an animalistic or tribal approach. There are only very limited chances, and it is reasonably unforeseeable that I will be called upon to in such a way give up my life for my children, but I am willing if I am faced with such a decision, to do this.

Harkening back to the Titanic disaster, when in that benighted era when abortion was most definitely illegal, and yet the children and those who bore them are considered so very much more important than the men in society. The call went out as the ship sank “Women and children first”. The captain, in an act of supreme cowardice and selfish avarice, pushed his own way onto a lifeboat and was publicly shamed the rest of his natural life for that act.

Children ought not run our lives out of their selfish ambition, but we are be called to subserve our wishes and desires and comfort when we have voluntarily taken upon ourselves the mantle of parenthood. And it is possible we may be called upon to subserve even our safety to them as well.

A very good family friend has been in the same situation as you, she had medically necessary c-sections for most if not all of her children. And her doctors told her much the same thing you’ve intimated you were told. Yet she chose to continue having her children when they came, and her children are intelligent and special every one.

Who would she be to play God and decide that this one or that one did not need to survive only to allow her to have one more day, which might not have even been hers to have?

Ron Paul?

A friend of mine supports Ron Paul for president. Admittedly, his libertarian views are very appealing to many people feeling as though the Republican mainstream has hung them out to dry. However, there are deep issues that I have with Ron Paul, very deep issues.

My friend and I got into a discussion regarding Ron Paul, and they have graciously given me permission to post it here:

Matthew:

Please tell me you only joined the group supporting Ron Paul as a joke.

Friend:

No, I wasn’t joking. Why should I? Go ahead and convince me! =] I’m game.

Matthew:

His political platform is mostly appealing, I do agree with that. However, he supports pulling us out of a war that, regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of the war or no, you must understand to pull out is to give a victory to an enemy who will not accept our defeat graciously but who will next bring the war to our doorstep again. His consistency on the issues he is most vocal about on the campaign trail is also less than stellar, with a marked propensity for bringing “pork” projects to his district.

Finally, and I know he himself does not espouse these beliefs, but white supremacists have jumped on his campaign, contributing money and support. Ron Paul has not repudiated these supporters or returned their money or prevented their support.

He is not a leader in the sense America needs. And while the the pickings are few in the field, I think of all the candidates running with an (R) after their name, Paul is least qualified.

Friend:

We are in a war that can’t be won. Don’t you remember that Bush declared victory over 4 years ago? Since then, 3,735 American soldiers have lost their lives. If that is victory, then we can’t win this war.

Do you remember Vietnam? We lost that war, and had the common sense to get out of there, (although it wasn’t until we lost 58,000 of our guys) and now? We trade with them! Our relations with Vietnam are as they should be with any country!

If a forthcoming attack is your concern, think about this. When Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, he’s talking about bringing home ALL of the troops from over 700 military bases, in over 160 different countries, all over the world. We would not no longer be growing resentment in any of these countries, who all deserve, as much as we do, to run their countries how the want, and not have a bigger, more powerful government come and tell them how to live. How would you feel if China or Russia came over here, and built 15 military bases or more, and started telling us how to run our lives? Would you sit back, and let them? I wouldn’t… I would do everything in my power, (which isn’t much=]) to stop them!

So, who would you stand behind for the next president of the US?

Matthew:

First, what about the war we are currently in is failing so very badly that there is no way the war can be one? Have you followed the news beyond what has been force-fed us by the media? Read the post here to see one side of the new growth of freedom in Baghdad. Even the New York Times, a paper arguably more invested than any other in our defeat in Iraq, last week published on the front page an article telling of the good that is occurring there.

We lost Vietnam because the politicians (the revered but Clintonesque JFK and the worst president in history Lindon Baines Johnson) would not allow the military to prosecute the war as it needed to be. The president selected the military targets, micromanaging far beyond what any true and wise leader would have or should have done. There was a small but vocal contingent at home which proclaimed the injustice of the war, getting their faces (and other body parts) smeared all over the evening news as our country fought for it’s soul. Public figures such as Jane Fonda openly consorted with the enemy while our soldiers, not allowed to fight as they should have, were captured and imprisoned and tortured. We still do not know the fate of many of those imprisoned, as the Vietnamese Communists who gained power through the pride and ineptitude of our leaders at the time, persecuting and killing many of their own countrymen as well as our servicemen.

Comparing that just but unjustly-prosecuted war with the conflict we are currently in, the times when the current was going poorly coincide with times when the military leadership has taken away responsibility and power from their field-level commanders, much as in the Vietnam war. One of the the reasons freedom from tyranny is succeeding right now and we are experiencing success in our military operations is that the generals are giving direction and responsibility and allowing the people under them to work and decide and wage their battles as they know best.

And regarding the justice of the war. Who do you believe attacked us in 1992, attempting to topple the trade towers? And again in 2001? The same people made both attempts. And regarding specifically the portion of the conflict in Iraq, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. But operating on the intelligence we had then, all the leaders, not just Bush, not just Republicans, not just ‘hawks’, and not just Americans, but the UN security council (regardless of the morality of their position) supported us in our use of force to depose Saddam Hussein and protect the world from any furtherance of his tyranny, either on his own people or on others through his state-sponsoring of terrorists and their weapons systems. Important to remember in this is that while we have not found any actual WMDs we have not found evidence that they were not or never there. Instead, the consensus is that they were trucked across the border to Syria and Iran, both countries with despotic governments who are not shy about broadcasting their intentions of world domination by their religion by their leadership.

As far as defense goes. The worst defense is the kind where all your assets are kept close by. With the world getting “smaller” as technology and transportation move more and more people further and further more and more quickly, and with weapons capable of striking anyplace from anywhere in mere hours, being “on-site” and in the region of conflict is a much more effective defense.

Regarding the bad feelings we are breeding by our presence in the regions. First, America is the only superpower in the history of the world which has neither forced it’s culture upon those it is around as superior, nor have we failed to relinquish sovereign control of the nations we’ve fought in to legitimate governments of those nations in most cases (several islands in the Pacific being the only exceptions to that). Instead, we fight alongside indigent warriors to free their nations, then we spend billions upon billions of dollars to shore up those nations economies and social structures. The hotbeds of hatred spring up wherever they will regardless of our presence. And to remove from the area would only grant unwelcome power to an unworthy underclass of malcontents and misfits.

I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).

As far as the nominees, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Rudy is bad news, and his promises to set up conservative judges are likely to be empty. Romney, I think most of his detractors are picking at straws in their critiques of him, but I do not think I’ll vote for him in the nomination for his lack of history to his moral beliefs regarding abortion. Thompson is (little) talk and I think he’ll fade away soon. Huckabee looks good but I’ve heard those close to him call him a pro-life liberal. I think he’d make an excellent VP if given a position of counsel and some authority. I’m not sold on him.

Of all these, I think Huckabee, if he shows strength continuing into these upcoming primaries, is my preferred choice, pending a bit more investigation.

We didn’t continue the conversation further mainly due to busy-ness.

Huckabee is looking to be less and less of a man I’d want to lead this country. He’d make an admirable vice-president, but his fiscal and many of his social programs are not good. He does not see that the best way to help people is to remove all government-sponsored assistance and as much government-required hindrance and and encourage as much private assistance as possible.

Instead his proposals include large amounts of money to be given to people by the government. Government money is never free and it always comes with strings. And it costs you and me. Why not just take less to start with?

But Ron Paul is the last person this nation needs. He does not appreciate the necessity of remaining in Iraq to bring it to a place of stability. A process in which much progress has already been made. He is not a man of his word.

Today’s Interesting Stuff - December 3rd, 2007

As this years begins winding to a close, we have one of those news days which just makes me happy.

Hugo Chavez, the communist thug who wanted to run things forever in Venezuela, has been told he can’t hang around any longer than 2012, his original term limit. Students formed a coalition and grassroots campaign to fight his power grabs, and because he’s still constrained by a constitution he must abide by the law. The Communist News Networks print mouthpiece, Time Magazine, had the temerity to call Chavez’ power grabs “reforms“.

They cannot stand the thought of not using murdered babies to try to improve lives. And they aren’t afraid to lie about it. There has not been a single case of successful treatment of any condition using human embryonic stem cells. The only reason the government is being petitioned to fund this research is because private industry will not.

And what of the propriety of the government funding research anyway? Is it the responsibility of the government to do such things? Consider another expensive project: space travel. Now consider such programs as the Ansari X Prize which encouraged the production of vehicles which can enter space and return with a usable payload twice in two weeks. Using private money and initiative. Can the space shuttle do that? Can the government do that?

The State of Texas School Board fired their science curriculum coordinator for sending around an article critical of Intelligent Design. And the ruckus begins. With baited headlines such as “Hey Science, Don’t Mess With Texas” from the Huffington Post (which is apparently a major Yahoo Op/Ed outlet now) and “Evolution: Don’t even talk about it in Texas” the frenzied crowds cry foul. However, where is the issue? I’m not going to make a judgment on whether the coordinator ought to have been fired, there may have been other issues which led up to this. It would be unwise to fire someone just for sending around a document such as this. But a common thread through this hue and cry is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are some super heavy-weights in the world stage which have dominated Evolutionary theory in education and elsewhere.

Now tell me this: which theory has had the greater part of the last 50 years to indoctrinate our youth, guide our scientific inquiry, and silence any and all public debate? It’s not Creationism or Intelligent Design. No, evolution, a theory without proof or even a preponderance of evidence beyond that offered by the need for man to be able to define himself apart from an omniscient God, has enjoyed all formal and official public support. Evolution is no spunky underdog in this fight, it is instead the 800 pound gorilla which has dominated all arguments and quashed all dissent. Evolution is a flighty, sensitive thing too, which does not allow argument or dissent.

Further joy from the religion of Peace. Thank God she has been pardoned and is back in the UK now. Though with the ‘peaceful’ nature of British Muslims, her safety may not be guaranteed at this point.

The hurricane season is over. It was average, low average. And less than was predicted.

If they can’t predict a single season, why do they think they can predict the end of the world?

A Sad Yet True-To-Life Christmas Song

matthew: Please welcome the newest addition to the I Pandora family of authors: American Texan. American Texan is a student who sometimes just has to write things down, and is rather good at it too. But don’t take my word for it…

As I was getting ready this morning I found the song “Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer” running through my head. I stopped and focused on the words I had just sung:

And then one foggy Christmas eve,
Santa came to say,
‘Rudolph, with your nose so bright,
Won’t you guide my sleigh tonight?’
Then all the reindeer loved him,
As they shouted out with glee,
‘Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer,
You’ll go down in history.’

The other reindeer didn’t see the value of Rudolph until someone pointed out that he was useful for something. Until that point his differences made him an outcast.

I think this relates very much to human behavior. Unless, or until, someone’s difference seems to contribute to the well-being or enjoyment of others they are often shunned.

Everyone is worthwhile regardless of their differences. I am worthwhile, not because of myself, but because I am a creation of God. My differences, my similarities, are absolutely nothing if it is just me; they have been given to me by God. Everyone is worthwhile because they are a creation of God. He made them who they are.

I remember the case of Terry Schiavo a few years back. Her husband, and numerous courts, didn’t see her life, her personhood, as worthwhile.

A potato is a potato even if someone, for example, says it is a flower. It will always be a potato no matter one’s viewpoint on it.

A person is a person and has worth no matter what anyone says. A person has worth even if you do not know what they will contribute to the world yet.

Everyone is worthwhile in God’s eyes regardless of how individuals or society as a whole views them. They are valued by God even if they seem to contribute little or nothing to others or to the world.