Marry your cellmate?

A friend directed my attention to a web site which claims to "Assist those following the Biblical tradition of arranging marriages for their Daughters." The site, which I will not draw further attention to by naming, lists underage girls "for sale" as brides. They say that the idea is for parents to list their daughter, her age, photo, and description along with a "bride price". Men can click the "Propose" button to offer to pay the family for the opportunity to marry the daughter. They list Bible references mentioning arranged marriages and paying the "bride price" to the father in exchange for the daughter's hand in marriage.

So essentially you have a web site trafficking in underage girls sold for sex, claiming to be a Christian operation.

But as I looked at the site, there were several red flags which screamed "fake!"

The listings themselves appear to be written to entice pedophiles. The photos couldn't possibly be real -- they look like photos from a teen model contest. And the testimonials are just far too outlandish to be real.

Here is one sample ad, name removed to protect the innocent.

*****’s grandmother married at 13, her mother married at 13, and ***** has decided she wants to keep the tradition going. She would prefer to stay close to her large extended southern family and loves farm or at least rural life. She got an A in Home Economics and has read up on what else would be expected of her as a wife and is looking forward to it.

Notice the thinly-veiled reference to this child being eager for sex. In most of the ads, sexual availability is implied, although carefully never stated.

Here is one of the "Testimonials"

My mother thought I was getting ‘too frisky” and that I had to get married right away before I lost my purity to some high school boy. They found me a husband and my parents were able to keep their house and pay off my mother’s medical bills. I was so glad I could help them, and being married at my age (I'm 16 now) has a lot of advantages, like my own credit card!

Again, suggesting that these girls are just dying to have sex with some older man.

As I looked further through the web site, it mentions that only men living in the United States can use the service. Supposedly this is because they need to follow up on the satisfaction of their customers, and it is just too hard to do that outside of this country. More likely, they only have jurisdiction in the US so they don't want to deal with men in other countries.

They specify that only adult men may "Propose", and all of the girls listed are underage. It is clearly set up to create an illegal situation, but the "Frequently asked questions" list says that it is all legal.

But here is the real ringer.

The web site's html code includes "search engine fodder" designed to bring in traffic from people searching for certain phrases. These key words are inserted into the web page source by the creators in hopes of attracting certain people to their site. So what does this sites key words indicate about who they are hoping to bring to their web site?

Here is a partial listing of the key words:

forced child slave prostitute hooker whore escort teen sexy sex childwatch naked abuse pervert preteen toy buy money sold young single horror polygamy rape slavery hot blonde brunette redhead 13 14 15 16 17 underage illegal teenage delinquent juvenile foreclosure virgin escort

It does not exactly prove that this is a sting operation, but it does prove beyond any doubt that the intentions are not Christian in any way, even in the misguided sense that they claim. It may be a Department of Justice sting operation, or it might be a site trafficking in underage girls for money. I'm leaning towards thinking that it is a sting, but I reported the site to the DOJ Center for Missing & Exploited Minors just to be safe. But either way, what bothers me is that they claim to run this sick operation based on the Bible. The Bible does not command or even endorse arranged marriages, and it absolutely does not condone violating societal standards or laws regarding the proper age for marriage or sexual relations, and the concept of selling a daughter is completely reprehensible by Biblical standards.

So if it is a sting, please don't claim to use the Bible in your operation!

Update: This web site was a hoax, not a sting or a real operation.

I won the lottery!

There is the old joke about the guy who keeps praying that God will let him win the lottery, and he doesn't win and doesn't win. And finally God tells him "Help me out here. Buy a ticket."

My stand is that if it is God's will for me to win the lottery, He has no trouble providing the ticket. Buying a lottery ticket is a loosing proposition, and therefore is poor stewardship of the money that God has blessed us with.

Today the news reports that four people won the $330 million MegaMillions jackpot, including one person here in Texas. A $330 million payoff on odds of 1 in 176 million sounds like a pretty good deal. What you won't hear them trumpeting so loudly is that no one of those people will walk away with anything remotely close to $330 million. The cash value of the jackpot is $190 million. Split four ways, they each get $47.5 million. But the government, as they hold out that money with one hand, grab back 28% of it with the other hand in taxes, leaving $34 million, or about ten percent of the advertised payout. Spending a dollar for a 1 in 176 shot at $34 million doesn't sound like such a great deal, does it? Not that $34 million is anything to sneeze at. But when you consider that people spent $600 million chasing that jackpot it seems like a case of mass hysteria.

The real winners are those who didn't buy into it. Like me.

Vick finds Jesus

"We all make mistakes," said Michael Vick. "Dogfighting is a terrible thing and I reject it ... I found Jesus and turned my life over to God. I think that's the right thing to do as of right now."

I'm not going to speculate here about whether this is a genuine decision or a calculated sympathy ploy. The timing is suspicious, but that's a matter known only by God and Mr. Vick.

What I can say with complete certainty is that it came a bit late. No one is beyond the reach of God's grace. Just look at Saul, who hunted down and killed Christians before meeting Jesus and being transformed by God into a great missionary. But if Vick had been similarly transformed a year or two ago through a genuine, life-changing encounter with the Living God, his life would be very different today.

Some people think that being a Christian is just about going to heaven when you die, but they are missing out on the fact that eternal life starts the moment you accept Christ as your savior, and at that moment God takes your old messed up life and supernaturally turns it around into something exceptionally good. Living life today in fellowship with God is just as much a benefit of salvation as going to heaven when I die.

I am thankful that God saved me when I was young, because He spared me from many of the stupid choices that people make when they try to live without Him.

The truth about Michael Vick will be seen in his life ten years from now. But how much better would it be if he had turned his life over to God ten years ago, and not had to lose so much to be forced to "find Jesus" in prison, watching his NFL career crumble before his eyes?

It is wise to learn from other people's mistakes, because it helps you to avoid making them all yourself. Perhaps Michael Vick could have avoided this calamity in his personal life by learning from other people's experience. And maybe you can learn from Michael Vick's experience. Don't wait until your life is ruined to turn to God. Do it now. Ask Jesus to be your Savior and Lord, and allow Him to turn you into a new creation. Do it today.

Bush did it

President Bush is to blame for a lot of bad stuff that has happened in the past years.

He pulled some strings to get Katrina to hit New Orleans, right in the spot where a bunch of environmentalist wackos prevented the Corp of Engineers from building a better sea wall. And if that's not enough, Al Sharpton says that Bush actually put dynamite under the levies to make sure that they would fail.

Bush caused the I-35 bridge to collapse into the Mississippi river in Minneapolis.

And Bush lied and got all of our dumb troops stuck in Iraq to profit his contractor buddies. That certainly was not about terrorism -- after all, Bush was behind 9/11 too!

But this one tops them all.

Now we have the bombshell revelation that President Bush got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on a tropical beach.

A 20-year-old Illinois college student is whining because she won’t be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn’t get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act.

I can't make this stuff up, folks. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that

Last spring, 20-year-old pre-med student Elizabeth Harris had only Costa Rica on her mind. She was hoping to wine and dine there while taking a few biology courses.
But the Waukegan native and University of Illinois at Chicago junior had to skip her trip. Having gone off birth control, Harris found she was pregnant. She said she quit when the cost of her prescription at the UIC clinic more than doubled. "[The price] steered me away," said Harris. "I don't blame them [UIC], but I might not be in the situation I am in now."

The cost of Harris’ birth control -- NuvaRing, a monthly contraceptive, at the UIC clinic was $35, up from $15. “She said that even though UIC provides free condoms she would only use them ‘once in a while.’ Other times she and her partner were feeling spontaneous and ‘it just happened,’ she explained”.

The story portrays Harris as the helpless victim of Bush's budget cuts and makes the case for more Federal funding of birth control: “Harris, coming from a low-income home, said she cannot afford to pay so much more for birth control.”

Sure. And what is the cost of the cell phone she was shown holding in the newspaper photo? She could afford a trip to Costa Rica, but couldn't afford $35 for birth control? Maybe if she can’t afford to protect herself, she should -- perish the thought -- abstain from sex.

How does anyone get the idea that taxpayers are required to pay for her birth control? That spontaneous sex excuses reckless behavior? That extra-marital sex is no problem, ethically or morally?

This is not just a case of one girl publicly sticking her foot in her mouth over her irresponsible behavior. It reflects a society which has lost its mind.

Two years

Two years ago today I launched "One Nation Under God" onto the internet with great fanfare. Since then, I have taken the blogosphere by storm, accumulating almost a dozen avid readers. In memory of the two year anniversary of this blog, I am going to repost the guiding principles I laid out two years ago. I believe that they apply now as much as ever, and I believe that each of the 161 posts in this blog have worked to advance these principles.

1. America is great in spite of its government, not because of it
2. The earth is not fragile. Capitalism is not a threat to the environment.
3. Without the Second Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is meaningless.
4. Budget deficits are caused by excessive spending, not insufficient taxation.
5. Parents are responsible for raising their kids, not villages and certainly not Hillary Clinton or the Federal Government.
6. Entrusting your retirement to the stock market is less risky than entrusting it to Congress.
7. Terrorism is an evil which must be wiped out, not appeased.
8. Most of the things that Congress does are outside of its Constitutional authority.
9. Free Market forces are better at improving society than government regulations.
10. Subsidizing irresponsibility is a very bad policy.

Vick's mistake

Michael Vick, star NFL quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, is looking more and more guilty of the charges that he not only participated in the barbaric "sport" of dog fighting, but that he also exercised extreme cruelty in killing poor-performing dogs in inexcusably inhumane ways.

But what really stands out to me is the stupidity of this case. Its not just that this guy was making $13 million per year on a ten-year NFL contract, and he threw it all away for less money than he made in a week. It is pretty clear that Michael Vick was not into dog fighting just for the money. He got a sick thrill out of torturing, mutilating, and killing.

And that is where Vick's ultimate stupidity shows through. Michael Vick chose the wrong victims to take out his viscous tendencies upon. He picked dogs -- animals who society hold up as cute cuddly pets. Animals upon which the animal rights movement has bestowed rights and protections on the same level as adult humans. In fact, the outrage in this case seems more far-reaching than the outrage over American citizens tortured and murdered by terrorists.

Michael Vick should have been more selective in choosing his victims. Instead of dogs, Vick should have unleashed his violence on a group which society has reduced far below human level -- one which no one will care about, no one will be outraged over, no one will defend. He should have taken up dismembering a form of life so low that the death and carnage will seem commonplace.

Michael Vick should have chosen a hobby of ripping unborn babies limb from limb. It would have satisfied his sick blood lust and his thirst for profit, and we would all have yawned and gone back to watching our football. No one would have wondered why we care about dogs more than about human babies. There would be no criminal charges, no media uproar, no calls for years of incarceration. If Michael Vick were just a bit smarter he could have avoided all of this hassle, and instead of being demonized, he would be held up as a hero of the left, defended as a champion of women’s rights, and praised for having the courage to end a defenseless human life weighing less than the steak he eats for dinner.

That is the senseless stupidity in it all. All Michael Vick had to do was pick on someone who no one cared about.

The horror!

You can rest assured that this intersection in Dalhart Texas is the only place where Dodson and Liberal intersect.

Who is the artist?

Our family spent the last week in Yellowstone National Park.

We hiked through the mountains and along the brink of a mind-boggling canyon, watched the wildlife, and observed many different aspects of the interactions between rock, water, heat, and time. We saw the energy from the molten core of the earth unleashed by the Yellowstone Volcano in the form of geysers, hot springs, steam vents, and boiling mud pots. We were dwarfed by mountains formed by the collision of massive plates of the earth's crust.

At the West Thumb Geyser Basin, on the shore of Yellowstone Lake, Ranger Steve led us on a ranger-guided walk through the thermal area. A professor of geology, specializing in hydro-geothermalogy, he is highly intelligent and very qualified to discuss the scientific basis for the geysers and hot springs in that unique region.

Ranger Steve

Ranger Steve described the constant change seen in the thermal features as the work of an artist. This great artist works in the mediums of rock and water interacting with the heat from the magma intrusion of the Yellowstone Volcano. This artist's tools include earthquakes which alter the "plumbing" system deep in the earth, thermophile bacteria perfectly adapted to feed off of the energy of the scalding water and convert the sulfur into sulfuric acid, and the occasional cataclysmic volcanic eruption which "wipes the slate clean" so that the artist can begin an entirely new masterpiece of creativity.

As you experience Yellowstone, it is easy to see it as the work of a great artist. However, when Ranger Steve identified the artist, he got it completely wrong. He said that the artist whose creativity was seen at Yellowstone was “Mother Earth.” But the earth screams with signs of an active creativity, intentional design, a purposeful application of power, and a delight in beauty and variety of creation. None of these are traits of a chunk of rock orbiting a star in the outer fringes of an inconsequential spiral galaxy. Creation is evidence of the existence of a creator. Design points to a designer. Purpose is proof of a higher intellect directing the course of existence.

The artist of Yellowstone is not an impersonal one. Even Ranger Steve admits this by personifying the earth with the name “Mother”. But the earth and the forces of nature which Ranger Steve lifts up as the artist are themselves the creations of God. If you exclude the possibility of God as the source of creation, then Ranger Steve’s naturalistic view of Yellowstone being a product of chance is the only option left, but that doesn’t make it scientifically sound. There is nothing scientific about rejecting the one explanation which best fits the observed facts without any basis other than a refusal to admit the existence of a creator with the authority to define moral boundaries.

Only God could be the great artist of Yellowstone, artist of the universe, and artist of our lives. An honest look at Yellowstone confirms without a question the truth of God’s existence, his role as creator, and his continued care for his creation. Everywhere I looked I saw proof of God’s greatness. I am awed to serve a God who could conceive of the things I witnessed, intelligent enough to design them to work in such perfect harmony, powerful enough to create them by his Word alone, and loving enough to let me experience the results of his creativity.

Changing my name

I have decided that if the list of options for the Republican nomination remains unchanged, I will change my name to "None of the Above" and declare myself to be a candidate. Now if Fred Thompson or Newt joins the race, that would be another matter.

But look at our current choices.

We have a New York abortion supporter who supports gun control. His claim to fame was his response in the days after 9/11, which was indeed admirable. He also has a good record of cutting taxes, fighting crime, and greatly reducing the welfare roles in his home state. I'd vote for him over Hillary in a moment, but I'd sooner switch parties than vote for him in the primary.

Then there is that idiot from my former home state. I voted for him for the Senate, but that was before he got presidential aspirations and started vying for the middle-of-the-road vote. These days he teams up with people like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to bring us horrible bills like the campaign finance travesty and the amnesty bill for illegal aliens, and to undercut President Bush's excellent judicial nominations.

Right now, the best of the "top tier" candidates is Mitt Romney. I would vote for a true conservative Mormon before I would vote for, say, a liberal "Baptist" former governor of Arkansas who doesn't inhale. But I am not sure that Mitt is a true conservative at heart. He knows the right things to say, but his track record of actual accomplishments is not that solid.

Surely this is not the best we have got.

I would love for Newt to get into this race. Newt is a true conservative revolutionary. Some people think that is a contradiction, but Newt excels at generating new ideas based on solid free-market conservative principles. His plan for "Winning the Future" is full of innovative ideas which, like his Contract with America, will really work and bring about the right kind of change. I recognize that Newt is one of the most vilified people in America, but that is really because he was so effective as Speaker of the House. If Newt runs, he's my man.

Fred Thompson is a close second. He is not a revolutionary like Newt, but he is 100% solid as a conservative. Everyone loves Fred right now, but I think that it may be a honeymoon phase. He has some baggage, too. And while he is right on in terms of issues and positions, suggestions that he is the next Ronald Reagan are certainly overblown.

So encourage Newt or Fred to throw their hat into the ring, or get ready to vote "None of the Above".

Vote of no confidence

Six months after taking control of Congress, the Democrats have accomplished little or none of their stated objectives, and the public is responding.

In a Gallop Poll released on June 21, 2007, the public's confidence in Congress is at an all-time low of 14%. Gallop polled 1,009 adults on their confidence in 16 different institutions. The military received the highest vote of confidence, with 69% of the respondents expressing high confidence. The Democratic Congress, which has spent most of its time staging symbolic nonbinding resolutions, denying funds to our troops, investigating legitimate firings, and grandstanding on topics like the minimum wage, tax increases, and embryonic stem cells, was ranked dead last.

Lower than HMOs.

And eleven points lower than the President.

I would say that this indicates that the Democrats have misread the message sent in the last election. Let's hope that Republicans can get their act together, find a solid candidate or two, and get back on message in time for 2008. The door is open.

Good news and bad news

This is a follow-up to Tuesday's post about Lockheed promoting "Gay Pride Month".

Wednesday morning, the banner was removed from the web site. HR indicated that they received a flood of protest. However, they did not acknowledge that removing the banner was a result of the complaints. Normally these "special announcements" stay up for two or three weeks. This one lasted 48 hours.

The company issued an official statement:

The recognition of Pride Month on InSite is not intended to endorse or promote anything. Just like the prior "special announcements" of Black History Month, Women's History Month, Asian-Pacific Heritage Month, and National Day of Prayer, we are acknowledging widely recognized days and months.

We certainly understand that not all employees will relate to all of these events. Nevertheless, we feel it is entirely appropriate to provide the information, which we do in an objective, straightforward way.

Ralph and I appreciate and respect your opinion. You absolutely have the personal right to disagree with the content of the posting. We will, however, continue to inform our employees of widely recognized events focused on diversity and inclusion. Our intent is to ensure that all employees have the opportunity to feel accepted and welcome in the workplace.

This statement is flawed in several ways.

First of all, when you use the word "Pride" you are making a value judgment, not an objective delivery of information.

Secondly, if you are familiar with the history of the Stonewall Riots, you will know that this violent attack on police officers is a far cry from the non-violent social action of Martin Luther King, and is not something that Lockheed Martin should be celebrating.

Third, Gay Pride is not analogous to Black History Month or Hispanic Heritage Month. The rich cultural and ethnic backgrounds of the employees at Lockheed Martin is something worthy of celebration, but lifestyle choices about who people have sex with is a private matter, not something we should have our noses rubbed in.

But we will make sure that they acknowledge red-blooded American Christian occasions. They gave their word.

Oxymoron

Remember Lockheed, the great All-American company dedicated to protecting and defending our freedom by producing the most dominant fighter jets in the sky? Take a look at what recently showed up on our internal web page, the one that tens of thousands of employees see every day:

This is brought to us by our Fort Worth Diversity Council, you know, the one that excluded me as a member. The banner is a link to a promotion of “National Gay Pride Month”. I know that today's society says to be proud of things that ought to be shameful. But I didn’t think that Lockheed would stoop to this kind of thing. I am guessing that someone said “Hey, you have Hispanic Heritage Month and Black Heritage Month, so why don’t you celebrate Gay Pride Month? We feel excluded!” But certainly they recognize that these are not analogous. Hispanic Heritage Month is a celebration of the different cultural and ethnic backgrounds of our employees, not lifestyle choices about who people have sex with. I think that ought to be a personal matter.

Lockheed has established the standard that anything offensive is not permitted. That policy covers email, internet content, posters, and speech. So I can’t send out non-business related emails using company assets if someone might be offended by them, and I can’t put up potentially offensive posters in my office. But I know that a lot of people find this promotion of “Gay Pride Month” to be offensive. I do. So I sent an email to management saying that I find it offensive. They can’t argue with that and say that I don’t feel that way. So all that remains is to see if they comply with their own policy.

A Glimpse Inside Don's Mind

Chicken wearing a purple wig
Monkey polkas with a pig

Horses flying in the sky
Putting makeup on his eye

Elevator full of paisley fish
Ask you for your Christmas wish

Pickup trucks with lettuce waltz
Shiny lobsters with no faults

Silly little peaches sing
As they soar on silky wing

Melancholy oysters hop
In circles as the floor they mop

Lemons eating split-pea soup
Snorkel in a chicken coup

Neon pansies jumping rope
Soon go golfing with the pope

Bulldozers are playing chess
With a lawnmower wearing a dress

Octopus with red bow-tie
Flies a kite up in the sky

Pickle floating in a shoe
Asks a skunk "How do you do?"

So you think this is bizarre?
The truth is more strange by far

To the mother of my sons

King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, described an excellent wife far more eloquently than I could manage. My own attempts to describe my wife would certainly fall far short, so I dedicate these words to my wonderful wife, my partner, my love, and the mother of my three sons.

An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.
She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household.
She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.
She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.
She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.
She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:
"Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all."
Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.

Alec Baldwin

Last week Alec Baldwin left a scathing, vitriolic, profanity-laced, threatening answering machine message for his 11-year-old daughter Ireland.

Here is what he had to say:

Hey I want to tell you something, ok? And I want to leave a message for you right now because it is 10:30 here in New York on a Wednesday and once again I made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone to call you at a specific time. When the time comes for me to make the phone call I stop whatever I am doing and I go and I make that phone call at 11 o’clock in the morning in New York and if you don’t pick up the phone, at 10 o’clock at night. And you don’t even have the God damned phone turned on. And I want you to know something, ok? I am tired of playing this game with you. I am leaving this message to tell you: you have insulted me for the last time. You have insulted me. You don’t have the brains or the decency as a human being. I don’t give a damn that you are 12 years old or 11 years old or that you’re a child or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn’t care about what you do as far as I’m concerned. You have humiliated me for the last time with this phone. And when I come out there next week I’m going to fly out there for the day just to straighten you out on this issue. I’m going to let you know just how disappointed in you I am and how angry I am with you that you have done this to me again. You’ve made me feel like shit and you made me feel like a fool over and over and over again. And this crap you pull on me with this God damned phone situation that you would never dream of doing to your mother and you do it to me constantly and over and over again. I am going to get on a plane or I am going to come out there for the day and I am going to straighten your ass out when I see you, do you understand me? I am going to really make sure you get it. Then I’m going to turn around and I’m going to come home, so you’d better be ready Friday the 20th to meet with me because I’m going to let you know just how I feel about what a rotten little pig you are. You are a rude thoughtless little pig, ok?

Baldwin and Basinger have been locked in a brutal custody and visitation battle over Ireland for years, and it is safe to say that the nastiness is not limited to Baldwin. Basinger is using her daughter as a weapon against Baldwin. People are lining up to bash Baldwin for his horrible parenting, for his verbal abusiveness against his daughter, and even for not knowing how old she is. A few others like “Men’s News Daily” magazine are coming to Baldwin’s defense. I don’t think very highly of Alec Baldwin, who seems very arrogant, self-absorbed, and self-important, and has demonstrated an instability and inability to control his temper on a number of other occasions. The tirade reveals the depth of the Hollywood egotism, the “world revolves around me” mentality that leads him to feel so incredibly put out when he stops what he is doing to call his daughter. Can you blame her for not answering? I would have blocked his number if I was in her situation.

But this is not a men-versus-women issue or a Baldwin-versus-Basinger issue. This ugly, indefensible rant reveals the nature of divorce. Divorce is a destructive, evil practice which rips homes apart and hurts everyone involved. The worst part of divorce comes when kids are involved. The kids are not at fault for the divorce, but they are caught in the middle of a tug-of-war caused by the parent’s selfishness. I understand that there are a few cases where divorce is a necessary evil. If one spouse is physically abusing the other or abusing the kids, the other spouse has the obligation to end that situation by any means necessary, including divorce. Irreconcilable infidelity is also legitimate grounds for divorce. But even in these cases, divorce is the lesser of two evils.

In Malachi 2:16 God says “I hate divorce.” Now we know that God is love, so anything he hates he must hate out of his love for us. God’s hatred of divorce is based in his love for the people who he created in his own image. The preceding verses reveal why God hates divorce:

…because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

Marriage is a covenant instituted by God thru which God takes a man and a woman and joins them to be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24) Jesus commanded that no man should separate what God has brought together. He was not just making arbitrary rules. He was speaking in love, to prevent little 11-year-old girls from getting evil, nasty voicemails from their dads.

In Ephesians 5:28-29 Paul wrote:

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.

Selfishness is the root cause of divorce. Sometimes it is one-sided selfishness, but usually there is plenty to go around from both husband and wife. But God’s plan for a loving marriage requires that we set aside our own self-interest and instead nourish and cherish our spouse. “Nourishing” means to create an environment which promotes health and growth. If I nourish my spouse, I make sure to provide all that she needs, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Cherishing my spouse means that I value her highly, as a precious treasure. How many divorces would there be if every husband, instead of thinking first about himself, devoted himself to nourishing and cherishing his wife, and if every wife did the same for her husband?

When some Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, he summed it up perfectly:

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

That explains a lot

There is a question which perplexed me for years.

Why do sumo wrestlers shave their legs?

I have searched for answers and struggled with the staggering philosophical and existential ramifications of this weighty matter. I have sought the council of wise and knowledgeable individuals and poured though many authoritative texts and ancient tomes seeking any insight to shed light on the deep and impenetrable mystery. But all of my efforts were futile. The answers I so diligently sought eluded me.

Then I heard that a sumo wrestling exhibition was coming to Fort Worth, and a glimmer of hope broke through the mounting frustration. As a powerful and influential member of the vast right-wing conspiracy I had no trouble getting press credentials from the media moguls I hobnob with. So armed with my Turner Broadcasting ID (Ted is a closet conservative, don’t you know?) I walked through the crowds of screaming sumo fans, past the security checkpoints, and into the back room where the wrestlers were preparing for their contests. I found one particularly large wrestler just finishing the daunting task of shaving his massive legs. As he put his Bic shaver away I asked him my most pressing question:

Why do sumo wrestlers shave their legs?

He answered: “We are tired of being mistaken for feminists.”

Intelligence analyst challenges Good Friday 'Spin'

(2007-04-06) — While Christians around the world gather for so-called “Good Friday” observances, an intelligence analyst studying primary source documents challenged the “irrational exuberance of the true believers,” and said his research to date indicates things did not go according to plan.

“At this point, you have a leader in whom a lot of people had placed their hopes, who failed miserably,” said the unnamed source who is in the process of translating and exploiting the documents. “There’s no progress — no movement at all. It’s a classic case of a bad plan, poorly executed. A rational person would ask, ‘What’s so good about it?’”

The source said that “while fanatics encourage taking a longer term hopeful view of the situation, and try to position the conflict as an epic struggle between good and evil in which good ultimately triumphs, the immediate reality on the ground shows the enemy has won, the plan lies in ruin and the way forward is blocked by an immovable obstacle. Redeployment appears to be the only viable option remaining. Any way you look at it, it’s a dark day.”

“You can call it Good Friday if you wish,” he said, “but that’s just spin. I can’t say it any clearer, ‘It is finished.’”

Draft Newt

When I think of the definition of "Conservative" one picture comes immediately into my head.

The picture is Ronald Reagan.

Next to Reagan's towering figure, none of the three leading contenders for the GOP nomination even come close to measuring up.

But there is one person who still wears the mantle of the Reagan Revolution. That person is former Speaker of the House and mastermind of the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich. This is a man who still believes in the principles of Reagan which the rest of the party is now paying the price for abandoning. Principles like limited government, lower taxes, reduced spending, free-market economy, and a strong defense. Newt is the only person on the scene with a combination of a solid ideological base, great new ideas for how conservative principles should be implemented today, and a proven track record for getting things done.

Not since Reagan himself has any man been as vilified by liberals, government establishment types, and the media. That is because Newt is dangerous to their vision of a more socialized, centrally-directed America. But Hillary has baggage too, and I think that her's will stick more than Newt's.

Visit the Draft Newt web site and read his position papers on many important issues, and if you prefer him to the existing options, register to join the Draft Newt movement. Let's get this great leader into the race!

Secrets of life

I have discovered that there are two secrets to life which assure that you will be happy, successful, prosperous, and fulfilled.

1. Never tell anyone everything that you know.

The World's Shortest Books

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT COUNTRY MUSIC
by Willie Nelson

FRENCH WAR HEROES
by Jacques Chirac

AN ENGINEER'S GUIDE TO FASHION

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT MY COUNTRY
by Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan.
Illustrated by Michael Moore

MY BEAUTY SECRETS
by Janet Reno

MY CHRISTIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS & HOW I HELPED AFTER KATRINA
by Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton

THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL
by Hillary Clinton

Sequel: THINGS I LOVE ABOUT HILLARY
by Bill Clinton

MY LITTLE BOOK OF PERSONAL HYGIENE
by Osama Bin Laden

THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD
by Bill Gates

HEALTH BENEFITS OF SMOKING
by Shane

THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY
by Dennis Rodman

CHOCOLATE NEW ORLEANS: A CAJUN DESSERT GUIDE
by Ray Nagin

THINGS I KNOW TO BE TRUE
by Al Gore & John Kerry

AMELIA EARHART'S GUIDE TO THE PACIFIC

WHY WE NEED A LIBERAL PRESIDENT

A COLLECTION of MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES
by Dr. J Kevorkian

ESSENTIAL RAP MUSIC SKILLS
by Eminem

MY EXPERIENCE LEADING A NATION
by Barack Obama

ALL THE MEN I HAVE LOVED BEFORE
by Ellen de Generes & Rosie O'Donnel

BENEFITS OF DEFEAT IN IRAQ
by Harry Reid

GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE
by Mike Tyson

THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY

LIMITS TO MY AMBITION
by Hillary Clinton

MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS
by O.J. Simpson

HOW TO DRINK & DRIVE OVER BRIDGES
by Ted Kennedy

MY PLAN TO DEFEAT TERROR
by Nancy Pelosi

Deadbeat dads

There are not many life forms on this planet lower than a parent who does not pay the required child support. Most are members of the platyhelminthes family. But there are a bunch of dads, and even a few moms, who fall into this category, and I support even the most drastic measures to extract what they owe. One big problem in collecting delinquent child support is that it is treated as a local matter, and if the deadbeat moves to a different city, there are all sorts of jurisdiction problems in collecting the money.

Today FoxNews reports that pizza delivery boxes are being used to distribute mug shots of deadbeats. The idea is that people on the run from the law don't want to get out in the open, so they order pizza. Good idea, but I think we can do better.

But it would not take a whole lot to effectively force a large percentage of these deadbeats to pay up. Here is how to do it:

Add a line on the Federal 1040 form which says: If you are currently delinquent on any child support payments, complete form XYZ and enter the unpaid balance on this line.

That amount becomes part of your tax liability, and failure to pay it is then tax fraud, a Federal crime which the IRS is quite adept at dealing with.

Stick it to 'em

Hillary, who voted to send our troops to war in Iraq, now wants to surrender Iraq to the terrorists. At least on even-numbered days that is her position. She always states this idea in carefully-crafted weasel words so that she can't really be pinned down. For instance:

"We never should have gone there, we never should have seen the mismanagement and the bad decisions that have unfortunately marked this administration's behavior. But we are there now and we have to end the war in the right way," she said to applause.

If you support the Democrat's plan to cut and run, the right way means leaving now and letting the terrorists overrun Iraq. On the other hand, if you would like America to win the war on terror, ending the war the right way means finishing the job as promptly as possible and leaving behind a stable democracy in Iraq. Hillary is happy to straddle the fence and let both sides interpret her statement as supporting their position. Of course, American victory in Iraq would be disastrous to the Democrats, who have staked their entire political future on defeat, so they are hell-bent on getting our troops out before they can win.

Given that Hillary wants to be President, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and take on the task of dealing with Islamofascists determined to destroy America, I think that it is fair to ask about her plan for winning the War on Terror.

The good news is that she came right out and told us.

Hillary spoke at a fundraiser in a Manhattan hotel ballroom filled with New York elected officials and wealthy Democratic donors:

"I turn off a light and say, 'Take that, Iran,' and 'Take that, Venezuela.' We should not be sending our money to people who are not going to support our values."

Yeah, that will do it. Hillary is ready to really get tough. Stick it to ‘em Hillary. Turn off a light.

Movies worth two hours of your life

I often take shots at bad movies and the Academy which drools over them.

You might make the mistake of thinking that I am generally anti-movie. The truth is, I love a good movie with a solid plot and good acting. I thoroughly enjoyed the three films from the Mexican directors which won a number of awards this year: Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, and Babel. I tend to like gritty, dark films. I am a big fan of Hitchcock and the film noir genre. My favorite films include Double Indemnity, Vertigo, Dial "M" for Murder, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Laura, A Witness for the Prosecution, Chinatown, The Shawshank Redemption, and LA Confidential. These days, Hollywood has a tendency to be shallow and unoriginal, substituting special effects, foul language, sex, and cheap laughs for plot and character development. And the Academy is much more impressed with a liberal agenda than a good story line.

So when Hollywood creates a film with a superb story line, good production value, great acting, and a clear presentation of a Christian world view all in one package, I do sit up and take notice. When they portray a man committed to faith in God, compelled by that faith to take action against injustice in spite of tremendous opposition, persevering through years of setbacks, facing hopeless obstacles, and battling his own personal demons, I am so impressed that I must encourage you to see this film.

The film I am talking about is "Amazing Grace", based on the true story of William Wilberforce, the man who ended the British slave trade. The title comes from Wilberforce's partnership with John Newton, the former slave ship captain turned monk and anti-slavery activist, who wrote the hymn "Amazing Grace". It is a film of redemption and restoration, but also it is a call to each of us to confront the injustices of our time, reminding us that a life of faith can not be lived out in solitude, retreating from the public arena. Instead, we must be engaged with the culture, shaping the culture and being an influence for what is right and just. As Christians, are we acting out that kind of influence today? If so, would the abortion industry be flourishing? Would pornography be big business? Isn't it time that Christians stop ignoring injustice and start confronting it?

Carbon cop-out

Al Gore got up on stage to accept the Oscar, looking like he had just swallowed Michael Moore. He urged us to have the will to do something about the imminent crisis of global warming. He jets around the world in his private airplane telling us regular schmucks to walk or ride a bike instead of driving, and to cut down on our energy usage. When it was revealed that he consumes 15 times as much electricity as the average American and flew more than 400,000 miles in his private jet last year, his reply was that he lives a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. He invests in "green" companies which are researching alternative energy sources, and that investment offsets the damage he argues is inflicted on the fragile climate by the millions of pounds of carbon dioxide he produces.

But does it really?

Perhaps he should invest in companies which produce tofu, bran, and bean sprouts to offset the high-fat diet which has resulted in his rather portly figure.

Perhaps a rapist could offset his rape by investing in a battered women's shelter.

Investing in companies which research alternative energies does not do anything to remove the "greenhouse gases" which Al Gore is telling the rest of us to stop producing. If Gore really believed the hysteria he is spreading, shouldn't he lead by example?

His concept of using "carbon offsets" to reduce his "carbon footprint" and achieve a "carbon-neutral lifestyle" is completely bogus.

It is even sillier than one of my favorite liberal guilt-relieving schemes of the past, the "socially responsible mutual fund".

Liberals feel bad about investing in the American stock market. You see, American corporations are the cause of nearly every evil in the world. Certainly they are far worse than Al Qaeda, and they probably even give President Bush a run for the money. Corporations pollute, destroy the habitat of snail darters, produce dangerous automobiles which cause global warming, don't provide adequate health insurance for their employees, give huge undeserved bonuses to their executives, and worst of all, make profits. Investing in these monsters is far worse than surrendering the War on Terror. Unthinkable.

Hence, the "socially responsible" mutual funds. These funds screen companies to eliminate those which carry on such horrific businesses as defending our country, producing firearms, building SUVs, providing oil, and making cigarettes. Of course they would never dream of investing in the most evil corporation of all: Wal Mart. They won't come out and say it, but the definition of "socially responsible" is always "politically correct from the liberal viewpoint".

I used to wonder why there was no "socially responsible" mutual fund based on the conservative definition of the phrase. You know, one that invested in Hummer, Lockheed Martin, Smith and Wesson, Exxon, Weyerhaeuser, and of course Wal Mart. This mutual fund would invest in the engines which drive our economy, create jobs, produce innovation, and provide the goods and services that we all want and need. And when I started to list out the companies which qualify, I recognized that the mutual fund already exists. In fact, I already own it. It is the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index. It owns shares in almost five thousand companies, large and small, covering all industries and sectors.

Perhaps we should consider this investment to be a liberal offset.

Lottery Mania

This morning, at least two people won shares in the $370 million Mega Millions Lottery jackpot. They faced the 1 in 175 million odds, and won. Those people will get a lot more media attention than the 600 million suckers who voluntarily paid into the jackpot.

I am going to resist the temptation to comment on the lottery, and instead, share with you my proven strategy to beat the system.

You heard me right. I have perfected a secret method which turn the odds in your favor.

Here is how I do it:

Simply write down the numbers you WOULD pick if you were going to buy a lottery ticket.

Then, when your numbers are not selected, celebrate that you did not waste a dollar on those losing numbers.

Then invest the dollar in something with a positive expected return. For instance, you could give it to your local Church, or invest it in the stock market.

Some times I even skip straight to the last step.

Islamic Justice coming to a town near you

Occasionally it is good to be reminded of who the enemy is, and what life would be like if they were permitted to prevail. Here is an example of Islamic "justice" as practiced under Shariah. Al Qaeda's stated goal is to impose Shariah first on the entire Middle East, and then on the entire world. If we surrender in Iraq as the Democrats are advocating, Al Qaeda will be one big step closer to achieving their goal.

A 19-year-old Saudi woman who was kidnapped, beaten and gang raped by seven men who then took photos of their victim and threatened to kill her, was sentenced under the country's Islamic-based law to 90 lashes for the "crime" of being alone with a man not related to her.

The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom.

She met the man at a shopping mall and, after driving off together, the blackmailer's car was stopped by two other cars bearing men wielding knives and meat cleavers.

During the next three hours, the woman was raped 14 times by her seven captors.

One of the men took pictures of her naked with his mobile phone and threatened to blackmail her with them.

Back at home in a town near the eastern city of Qatif, the young woman did not tell her family of her ordeal. Nor did she inform the authorities, fearing the rapist would circulate the pictures of her naked. She also attempted suicide.

Five of the rapists were arrested and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years. The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty for the men.

The Saudi justice ministry, however, said rape could not be proved because there were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation.

The judges, basing their decision on Islamic law, also decided to sentence the woman to lashes for being alone with a man in his car.

Calling the Oscar

James Cameron's film "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is a shoo-in for next year's Academy Award for "Best Documentary".

Just as Al Gore's global warming boogieman fiction and Michael Moore's mockumentary were sure things long before the envelopes were opened, you can take this one to the bank.

Some people think that making a good historical documentary is about presenting solid fact supported by undisputable physical evidence, consistent with the consensus of historians, archeologists, sociologists, and forensic scientists, as well as with other records from the period.

Those people are old fashioned and naive.

All indications are that qualities such as the truth of the claims are no longer relevant. What matters now is the political agenda behind the film.

It constantly amazes me that people are willing to buy into wild claims like this. These are the same people who talk about how reading The Da Vinci Code opened their eyes to what is really going on in the world and breathlessly listen to Art Bell to find out if earth is passing through the photon belt yet.

Scholars, both Christian and secular, are already lining up to dispute the central claims in Cameron’s film. They point out many obvious flaws: the names on the caskets were common. You would expect to find those names on many caskets from that time period. Jesus came from a poor family in Galilee. You would not expect the family to have an expensive burial plot near Jerusalem. It is not at all clear that the boxes were found together. The authenticity of the inscriptions has been questioned, as has the claim of exactly what the inscriptions say. Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said that the inscription claimed to say “Jesus” is more likely to say “Hanun”, another common name. He points on that ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the film’s claims fail to hold up by archaeological standards but make for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

But there are more convincing proofs that Jesus’ body was not buried in that box next to his “wife” and “son”.

History would not have unfolded as it did if that was the case.

In the days following Jesus’ crucifixion, a great deal of commotion revolved around the claims that Jesus had raised from the dead. These claims and the growing movement of Jesus’ followers undermined the authority of Rome and Pilate, the Roman governor. If Jesus body had still been in the tomb, Pilate would have certainly produced the body to lay the issue to rest. The Christian movement would have been extinguished. But Pilate could not produce the body of the man who he had sentenced to die, so it was no longer in the tomb where it had been buried.

Some people will claim that Jesus disciples stole the body and hid it to support their claim that he had risen. This story doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

The tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers and sealed with Pilate’s seal. A Roman soldier who fell asleep at his post or failed to protect what he was guarding would be executed. Jesus disciples, comprised of a few fishermen, a tax collector, and other tradesmen and farmers, were no match against Roman soldiers. Jesus followers had neither the money nor the motive to bribe the guards. The Jewish leaders had both the financial resources and a pressing reason – to put to rest the growing Christian movement which threatened their authority.

Any way you look at it, stealing Jesus body to back their claims that he had resurrected would require a grand conspiracy involving many people, and such undertakings seldom hold up for long. And if the disciples had gone to such lengths to steal the body, they would certainly not bury the body in Jesus’ family tomb with his name engraved on the box. They would have to dispose of the body to ensure that it would never be found or identified.

Finally, if the disciples had conspired to steal the body to support what they knew to be a lie, what would possibly lead eleven of the twelve to face violent deaths still professing the truth of the resurrection? Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, and Simon were all crucified, James bar Alphaeus, Judas, and Matthias were stoned to death, James son of Zebedee was beheaded, Matthew and Thomas were both speared to death, and Peter was crucified upside down. Only John died of natural causes, exiled on the island of Patmos for his faith in Jesus. Not a single one of them, facing horrific deaths, recanted their testimony that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. As first-hand witnesses, they were convinced beyond a doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead, proving that he was who he claimed to be – the Son of God.

Real scholars and historians recognize James Cameron’s film for the hogwash that it is, and Christians know that Jesus is not buried in a tomb. We know that he lives because he is actively transforming our lives every day. He lives in our hearts, not figuratively or metaphorically, but literally.

Since “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is based on obvious falsehoods, why am I so convinced that it will win the Academy Award in the “Documentary” category? The historical precedence is clear: Al Gore won in spite of the fact that the central assertions of the film are demonstrably false. And Michael Moore won with a film which used an assortment of fabrications to support a highly questionable thesis, leading me to question why it is eligible for the Documentary category. Inaccuracies do not seem to be a roadblock to success with the Academy. In fact, they seem to be a requirement. These Oscar winners along with other nominated films such as “Jesus Camp” and “Iraq in Fragments” have one thing in common: a political agenda. Bashing conservatives or Christians scores big points, but debunking Jesus is the ultimate, even if the facts don’t really line up.

So Mr. Cameron should start writing his acceptance speech. Unless, of course, Michael Moore makes a film claiming that President Bush is Osama Bin Laden’s long-lost brother, citing Daily Kos as “evidence”.

An Inconvenient Truth

Just heard on NPR that today's Congressional hearings on "global warming" were postponed due to a heavy snowfall.

I'm in, and I'm in to win!

I think that it is about time that I get in on the hottest trend.

Every day now it seems that someone new is joining the contest, hoping for their chance to gain power, wealth, and fame. They make their case to the media, posture for the fawning news cameras, and bask in the new-found notoriety. And the speeches. So...articulate. They ardently deliver tear-jerking accounts of their youth and vague but moving promises of what they would do if selected for such a position of prominence.

The truth is, so many people have declared their candidacy that I am beginning to feel left out. Looking at all of the options, I feel that I am at least as qualified as most of them. As with most of the rest of the crowd vying for the coveted mantle, some technicalities may stand in my way. But I will not be dissuaded. The fact that one leading candidate, a fresh clean face recently arrived on the stage whose name is commonly confused with another iconic figure, has a long history of snorting cocaine is not standing in his way. Why should some minor details hinder me?

And so, after careful consideration and the formation of an exploratory committee, I have decided to join the fray, throw my hat in the ring, and declare my candidacy.

You may think it folly for a tall, lanky man from Indiana to enter this arena. You may even consider it to be the height of audacity. But I am in, and I’m in to win.

I hereby announce that I am joining the paternity battle for the baby of Anna Nicole Smith.

I’m one of the few people in America who has not already claimed paternity of the baby and the hundred million dollars that comes with the deal. Minor technicalities like the fact that I never met Ms. Smith should not stand in the way of the pursuit of wealth and fame.

In what other country in the world can anyone, no matter how humble their origins, aspire to someday sue for paternity of a golddigger's baby and become a multi-millionaire?

If that's not the American dream, I don't know what is.

Celebrity confusion

I was a bit confused when I heard the news reports that Anna Nicole Smith had died.

I thought that OJ Simpson killed her about fifteen years ago.

To tell you the truth, I can't keep all of these pop-culture trash celebrities straight. Exactly who is Anna Nicole Smith? And why should we all be interested in the fact that she is dead? As near as I can tell, more than five thousand people died in America yesterday. Why should her death stand out as newsworthy?

What has she accomplished in her life to deserve the storm of media attention?

I racked my brain to recall anything at all about her.

Was she the one who went on a drunken binge, neglecting her kids as she had wild drug-ridden parties? Maybe, but that doesn't narrow it down much. That describes most of the pop-culture world.

There was something about a pop icon running around without any panties. Was that her?

She doesn't share a name with a hotel chain or a city in Europe, so that claim to fame doesn't apply to her either.


Plastic, artificially enhanced, over-made-up bleached blondes with screwed up personal lives are a dime a dozen. Why not instead report on someone who has improved the world by their own personal sacrifice. You don't even have to wait until that person dies.

We know who is to blame!

So I was walking past a TV and saw just enough of the football game to know that Chicago was beating New Orleans in a slight snow flurry.

And my first thought was: Where is FEMA?

Snow flurries in Chicago in January certainly constitutes a natural disaster, probably caused by global warming resulting from Republicans driving SUVs. And President Bush was far too slow getting FEMA on the scene to deal with the catastrophe. If there was ever any doubt that there is a conspiracy against New Orleans, this surely puts it to rest.

Surrender by any other name

Before the election I told you that the Democrats want to surrender the War on Terror.

Now they are admitting it.

Of course they don't all agree. They are still debating exactly how fast to give up. Some want to loose immediately. Others want to loose more slowly, over several months. But they all agree that defeat is their ultimate objective.

Of course they can't call it surrender. In fact, their biggest problem is what to call their plan to cut and run to make it acceptable to the American people. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I offer to help them come up with a name. In fact, I have several ideas:

Strategic Skedaddle -- Sounds like a strategy for victory, if like most of us, you don't know what a "skedaddle" is.


R-U-N-N-O-F-T -- Borrowed from Mr. O'Daniel in "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?". I figure that if you spell it, some people won't figure out what you are really saying.

Phased Redeployment -- Oh, they already thought of that one.

Post Mortem

Last week, the voters fired the Republican Congress.

If we try to read the election any other way, we will reach the wrong conclusions.

We can't whitewash it or pretend that it didn't happen. If we don't figure out why it happened and make significant changes, it will take a very long time to recover.

On the other hand, the election was not a vote FOR the Democrats. They did not present a clear platform or communicate a direction for the country, so they can not claim any kind of a mandate for their agenda. This was purely a vote AGAINST Bush and the Republican Congress.

It is vital that Republican's correctly interpret the message we got from the voters and make the correct changes.

First of all, we should not mistake it as a push to become more liberal. Many of the Democrats who were elected were conservatives. There was not a liberal ideological move in the nation which brought about this change in the control of Congress. It would be more accurate to say that the Republican Party moved to the left of it's core supporters, the voters responsible for electing Reagan in 1980 and a Republican majority in 1994.

It is also wrong to dismiss the election as purely a statement against the war in Iraq or support for Murtha's plan to abandon Iraq. Joe Lieberman, a strong supporter of victory in Iraq, was elected by a wide margin, rejecting an anti-war Democrat alternative. Some voters were expressing their view that we should not have gone to war in Iraq. That is a valid view, and one which I expressed back in January of 2003. Today 20/20 hindsight is not very relevant, because we must deal with the reality that we are at war in Iraq. But I do think that the election was a demand for improved results in Iraq. We need a better strategy for victory in Iraq, not to redefine surrender as victory. I am eager to see Baker's recommendations, and I would embrace a plan which results in a stable, democratic ally in Iraq.

After studying the results of exit polls on the issues driving this election, it becomes clear that there are several things Republicans must do to regain momentum. When CNN asked voters what issues were most important, Iraq was forth on the list, behind corruption, terrorism, and the economy. Exit polling found that voters trusted Democrats more than Republicans on the issues of taxes and spending. Up until two years ago, this position would have been completely unjustified, but today it is quite understandable.

Corruption in the Republican Party is a serious issue which needs to be addressed. As taxpayers and citizens we should not put up with it. Democrats are certainly not immune from corruption, as evidenced by William Jefferson and his deep freeze full of cash. But the party in control is always going to more prone to corruption, because they have more influence. Democrats have created the perception that corruption is a Republican issue, and capitalized on that perception very successfully. As Republicans we need to do a much better job of keeping our house clean so that we will be above reproach and don’t give our opponents the opportunity to undermine our effort.

Terrorism ought to be a winning issue for Republicans. Democrats are pathetically weak in defending our nation and responding to terrorists actions. We saw Clinton’s way of dealing with terror, and there is a clear distinction in the decisive way that President Bush has responded. This is a case where we just need to stay on message and communicate the distinction without allowing Democrats to turn a positive into a negative.

Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 on a platform of limited government, controlled spending, and tax cuts. Newt Gingrich became the torch bearer for the Reagan Revolution. For six years they governed according to these principles, and the result was a large reduction in the deficit and a strong, growing economy. However, when George Bush became President, it broke the gridlock and resulted in an inexcusable spending binge. The principles on which the Reagan Revolution was built were quickly forgotten. On this blog, I have been hollering about fiscal responsibility and controlling spending, but no one, not even our representatives in Washington DC, is really listening.

In my view, the point where we lost was when we switched from being principle driven to politically driven. We need a leader who is more like Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich and less like Karl Rove. I am not yet ready to single out one person as that leader, but Mitt Romney or Newt would be candidates.

There was a clear message sent last Tuesday. We need to listen, respond, and move forward.

Silver lining

We always try to keep an upbeat outlook, so I have gone out of my way to find the positive side to the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives. There are a few very definite upsides:

• The New York Times and CNN will have much more favorable coverage of Congress
• Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee lost, and Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman won. That is a net gain of two for the GOP.
• We finally get to see the Democrat's plan for victory in Iraq.
• Taxpayers will be relieved of the stress of making so many investment decisions.
• Reduction in attacks on our troops in Iraq, since terrorists fear attorneys.
• Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is now available for Supreme Court appointment.
• NSA agents could soon be freed from having to listen to annoying terrorist chatter.
• Since a lot of the polling places are in church buildings, millions of Democrats actually went to church yesterday.
• Democrats can sleep more peacefully, now that they know that Karl Rove does not control everything.

Republicans in a funk

Polls indicate that Republican voters are feeling hopeless and depressed by the course of the nation. Mired by relentless barrage of painful publicity of plunging gasoline prices, record stock market levels, reduced tax rates and surging tax revenues, and the Bush administration's failure to produce inflation despite the lowest unemployment rate in more than fiave years, Republicans believe that it could not get any worse. Meanwhile, Democrats ride a wave of public adoration due to the party's clear, positive vision for protecting the civil rights of foreign terrorists, retreating from Iraq so that the rival Muslim sects can work out their differences without American interference, and a return to the Clinton-era "spirit of cooperation" with North Korea.

Kerry blames GOP for botched apology

Senator John Kerry today issued a statement on his web page blaming Republicans for misunderstanding his botched attempt at an apology for his remarks about the intellectual capacity of American soldiers:

“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.“

The junior senator from Massachusetts said that “in the course of my botched apology, I inadvertently used the word ‘troop’ to refer an individual soldier. I also said that I ‘personally apologize’ when in reality I just posted a few sentences on my web site, addressed to no one in particular.”

“Come to think of it,” he continued, “my apology didn’t admit wrong doing, express regret for my actions, or offer to make things right. I really just blamed the troops for being dumb enough to misunderstand the nuance of my joke.”

“It has been suggested that the context of my remarks should be considered. After all, I did take a cheap dig at the President earlier in the speech, and it is unlikely that I would just take a shot at our troops out of the blue. Of course, in the bigger context of my life, insulting the American military is a favorite pastime of mine. My comments about uneducated failures getting stuck in Iraq is just a reprise of my old anti-Vietnam shtick, which is the cornerstone of my political career.”

“The true significance of my botched apology is that Republicans will do anything to divert attention from the quagmire in Iraq, even if it means letting a Democrat Senator scuttle his party’s political strategy on the eve of national elections.”

Kerry pays respect

To all of our troops fighting bravely around the world, standing up against the forces of evil and terror who hate America and the freedom it represents, John Kerry salutes you.

Here is what the Democrat's 2004 Presidential Candidate had to say:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

John Kerry, who I must remind you, voted FOR the war (before voting to defund our troops who were already there) supports you, even though you are stupid highschool flunk-out losers who have no better career prospects than terrorizing women and children in the dark of night.

It's good to know you are appreciated, huh?

Feeling over thinking

A week ago, actor Michael J Fox appeared in television ads supporting Claire McCaskill's campaign for Senator from Missouri. There has been a great deal of controversy over the ads, in which Fox makes a number of factually untrue claims, including a charge that Senator Talent, McCaskill's opponent, wants to make stem-cell research illegal. The truth is that stem cell research is legal and is already happening in Missouri and across the country. The major difference between McCaskill and Talent is that McCaskill wants to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and Talent thinks that it should be privately funded.

Most scientists (other than those lobbying for tax dollars to support embryonic stem cell research) agree that adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells are much more promising candidates to achieve effective treatments for Parkinson's Disease and spinal cord injuries. Embryonic stem cells are just one of many varieties of stem cells being researched, and are the least promising in terms of the prospects for actually curing diseases. While other kinds of stem cells are already in use for the treatment of at least 80 different conditions, embryonic stem cells have not even been approved for a single human clinical trial, mainly due to the high risk of rejection and the side affect of causing monster tumors observed in animal trials. However, the majority of Democrats in Congress voted earlier this year to fund embryonic stem cell research, but voted against funding the more promising research involving stem cells which do not require the death of the donor. It seems that they only want research if it requires that unborn babies be killed in the process. And thus the real agenda is revealed: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a desperate attempt to demonstrate that there is a benefit to society in the killing of unborn babies.

I said from the beginning that the Fox ad plays to people's emotions, rather to rational thought. Rush Limbaugh was broadly criticized when he suggested that Fox stopped taking his Parkinson's medicine to film the ads, but Fox wrote in his book that he intentionally stopped his medication when testifying before Congress. It is clear that he is using his symptoms to invoke an emotional reaction of sympathy. It comes across as a shameless act of manipulation, and you have to wonder if he thinks that people are really stupid enough to fall for it.

You might think that Fox's condition makes him uniquely qualified to speak on efforts to cure Parkinson's Disease. Surely he is more knowledgeable about the issues in the Missouri election than the average guy. The central issue revolves around a ballot proposition which provides funding for embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. Its supporters point out that the proposition forbids human cloning. While it does forbid reproductive cloning, it explicitly protects the practice of human cloning for research: the process of farming cloned human embryos expressly for the purpose of using the embryos for research. When Fox was asked about this on ABC's "This Week" he said something rather remarkable:

"I don't think that's true. ... I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know. On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."

So Michael J Fox admits that he made an ad supporting a candidate because of her position on an initiative which he has not even bothered to read! If there is any question that this ad campaign is pure emotional manipulation, rather than an appeal to rational thought, this puts it to rest.

Speaker Pelosi

The election is 12 days away, and Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Treat, is already picking out the curtains for her new Speaker of the House Office Suite. But what will America look like if Nancy Pelosi has her way? Does it really matter if the Democrats take over Congress? The Republicans have plenty of faults. I have taken issue with them repeatedly for not controlling spending. And they could have done a lot better at communicating the rationale behind the War on Terror and the importance of winning in Iraq. But for all of their shortcomings, they are light-years better than the Democrats.

Here are some things to think about:

• Do you want to see more good judges like Roberts and Alito confirmed? Elect Democrats and they will block confirmation of anything but liberal activist judges.
• Do you think you pay enough in taxes, or do you feel the need to pay even more? Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats have said that a top priority is reversing President Bush’s cuts to every tax bracket.
• Do you really think that Democrats will do better on controlling spending? All historical evidence suggests the opposite.
• Do you want homosexual marriage legalized? Vote Democrat! That is one of Pelosi’s biggest issues, being a San Francisco liberal.
• Do you want human cloning legalized and funded by your tax dollars? What about harvesting human embryos for research? Democrats have politicized this issue, but they only support research if it involves killing babies. They voted against supporting much more productive research involving adult stem cells.
• Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants? Bills to take important steps to secure our borders have been held up because Democrats and a handful of “moderate” Republicans demand giving amnesty to people in the country illegally.
• Do you think that appeasement and negotiation is the best way to deal with rogue dictators, terrorists, and nations which support terrorists? President Clinton gave North Korea a nuclear reactor in return for assurances to use it only to generate energy. Guess where the weapons-grade uranium in bomb they tested came from?
• Do you think that President Clinton’s approach to terror was more effective than President Bush’s? Clinton’s response to attacks on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia was to give a speech, bite his lower lip, and vow to bring the people responsible to justice. The extent of his action was to blow up an aspirin factory in Afghanistan. Bush has dismantled Al Qaida’s command structure and crippled their ability to operate. The final measure of his success is seen in the fact that in the five years since 9/11 Al Qaida has not been able to carry out another attack on American soil.
• Do you think that someone should be able to take underage girls to another state for an abortion without her parent’s knowledge? Pelosi has said that she supports repeal of a law requiring parental notification to take a minor child across state lines for an abortion.
• Do you want to hamstring our efforts to stop terror attacks? Pelosi bragged about killing the Patriot Act, which gives critical tools to our Homeland Security Department.
• Do you want to confer Constitutional rights on terrorists? Democrats want to give known terrorists public trials with the same high standard of proof required of criminal trials. This will result in known terrorists being turned free to continue their murder.
• Do you think that Democrats have a better plan for how to win in Iraq? What is it? They criticize President Bush, call our troops terrorists, and say that we can’t win, but they don’t have an alternative plan to offer, other than Jack Murtha’s cut and run, surrender to the terrorists.
• Do you think that we should intercept the communications of terrorists when they call people in the United States? Democrats want to make it prohibitively difficult.
• Do you want our military to surrender Iraq to the terrorists? Although there is a lot of debate among Democrats about what to call this, very few Democrats are committed to winning in Iraq, supporting the new government until it becomes self-sustaining. Those like Lieberman who do understand the importance of finishing the job are punished by the left wing of the party as an example to other Democrats.
• Do you think that President Bush should be impeached over policy differences in the War on Terror? Representative John Conyers , the ranking Democrat in the House Judiciary Committee, has already circulated a document intended as the basis of impeachment hearings.

Do you think that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats? Think again.

Do you think that Democrats have earned the right to govern? How?

Do you think that issue by issue, Democrats are better than Republicans?

If you don’t want to go where the Democrats want to take us, go vote and take a friend!

That's it!

I've heard enough! There is no place in Congress for a sleaze like Mark Foley. As Republicans, we will not tolerate someone like Foley exchanging explicit emails with underage pages. We are not like the Democrats who allowed Gerry Studds to not only remain in Congress but to be committee chairman for 13 more years AFTER it was discovered that he was having sex with a 17-year-old page. We have higher standards than that. We will not allow Foley to make a mockery of Congress by remaining in office. I call on Mark Foley to resign immediately!

Call me Jack

There is just no way that the Republicans are going to win this election, so we might as well just give up now. What is the point in even going to the polls to vote? Let's just write this one off and hand the country over to the Democrats. In fact, Republicans in Congress might as well just resign now. I call for a full and immediate redeployment of Republican politicians back into the private sector. Why stop with Congress? President Bush should just go ahead and resign too. While we are at it, let's just suspend all future elections, and have Bill Clinton appoint whoever he wants to run the country. We got into this election for the wrong reasons, and we were mislead into thinking that it would be easy to win. This is an election that we simply can not win. In fact, we have already lost it, so why should we keep dragging out the pain? I say we should cut and run, surrender, wave the white flag, give up. Why maintain the illusion that there is still hope? I volunteer to help Hillary pick out her new curtains for the Oval Office.

The Don Factor

• Lucent stock increased 613% from 1997 to 2000 and then dropped 99% from 2000 to 2002
• Lockheed stock dropped 71% from 1997 to 2000 andthen grew 412% from 2000 to 2002

There is clearly a turning point for both companies at January of 2000. What happened at that point in time?

In January of 2000, Don moved from Lucent to Lockheed.

The impact shook Wall Street.

Lucent's astronomical growth turned into a nosedive.

Lockheed's floundering was reversed and the stock took off like an F-16.






This suggests a new investment approach:

Invest in the company where Don works.

• If you invested $1000 in Lucent when Don worked there, and then moved the money to Lockheed when Don moved, in six years, your $1000 investment would have grown to $26,230.
• If you invested $1000 in Lockheed when Don worked at Lucent and then moved the money to Lucent when Don moved to Lockheed, your $1000 investment would have shrunk to $3.62 by the end of 2002.

Don’s total impact on the market accounts for $233 billion in market movement.

Conclusion: Don is underpaid.

Two approaches

There are two approaches to dealing with murderous dictator thugs. One is to use diplomacy, negotiation, appeasement, and concessions to encourage them to do the right thing. For decades we have used this approach with North Korea. President Clinton gave them the nuclear reactor they are using to create the uranium to make nuclear bombs, in the hopes that they would use it for peaceful purposes. While diplomacy is the right approach to dealing with responsible nations, the fruits of years of diplomacy, compromises, and negotiation were seen yesterday when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon, the latest act in their effort to extort more money from us with their nuclear blackmail.

The other approach is to confront evil dictators head-on and prevent them from reaching a point where they can threaten the world with nuclear weapons. Here is something to ponder: has Saddam Hussein tested a nuclear weapon? Do you think that he will test a nuclear weapon next year? What about next decade? Will Iraq EVER threaten to nuke Israel if we don’t send them another twenty billion dollars in foreign aid? Did we avoid this threat by appeasing Saddam? No! We reached this point by strong military action. In 1981, Israel bombed the heck out of Saddam’s Osirak reactor, preventing them from using it to enrich uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Estimates are that Iraq could have produced one or more bombs by 1988 if that reactor had remained in operation. Then in 1991 we again set their nuclear program back a decade or more with our bombing campaign in the Gulf War. Finally, in 2003 we ousted Saddam, captured him, and put him in jail. We know that he had weapons of mass destruction under his control in the past. He used them no less than a dozen times, and he repeatedly tried to obtain a nuclear capability. We know that today he does not have weapons of mass destruction under his control, and he will never hold the world hostage with nuclear blackmail. It seems that this approach is much more effective. Maybe it is time to reconsider how we deal with Kim Jong-il.

Amish Funeral Protests

Yesterday morning I gathered with about five hundred people at Hulen Street Baptist Church. We sang praises to the Lord, prayed, and heard God's Word proclaimed. All across the nation, others were doing the same thing. Tens of millions of believers united their hearts in the unity which can only come from a relationship with Jesus Christ. Lives were transformed, broken relationships were healed, hearts were cleansed. The course of people's lives were reversed, turning from a downward spiral away from God to a full, purposeful life in God's will. Countless people accepted Jesus free gift of eternal life and began to experience the abundant life that God intended for them.

In Nickel Mines Pennsylvania, about 20 members of a fringe "church" from Topeka Kansas threatened to picket at the funeral of the five Amish girls killed in the school shooting last week. The protestors, from a church which was asked to leave the Southern Baptist Convention many years ago because of their un-Christlike rhetoric and methods, never actually showed up to picket.

But if you based your opinion of Christians on this weekend's media coverage, what picture would you get: people living out a renewed life in relationship with their creator and redeemer, or angry people invading the privacy of people suffering from a horrible tragedy?

The reality of the Christian life as experienced by me and by tens of millions of other believers is not deemed newsworthy. After all, it happens every day in every city and town. Every channel on your 200-channel cable box could not contain all of the stories of what an extraordinary God is doing in normal people's lives. But all you get from the media is coverage of a few nutcases who use this kind of tragedy to get attention for themselves through their outrageously inappropriate actions.

The media’s job is to report the unusual events, the exceptions, the fringe occurrences, not the common things which happen all the time. That is our job. On Sunday mornings we gather together in the church building, but on Monday morning, the Church of Jesus Christ hits the road. We carry the light of Jesus into our homes, communities, schools, workplaces, hospitals, grocery stores, and wherever else we go. A darkened and lost world needs to see that light in us, in our actions and our words, because they are surely not going to get it from watching TV.

What do you say?

Imagine for a moment that you are standing in front of a stadium packed with twenty thousand people, and they are not happy with you. They all have one thing in common: each one lost a spouse, sibling, child, or parent when terrorists blew up the Liberty Tower in LA, the tallest skyscraper on the west coast.

You were responsible for gathering intelligence from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after he was captured in March of 2003 in Pakistan. This Al Qaeda leader, already responsible for the deaths of three thousand Americans, had vital knowledge about no fewer than nine terror plots in various stages of planning, and had information which could lead to the arrest of dozens of terrorists around the world.

But Khalid was not willing to share that information freely. He held out against standard interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to cold.

There was one more technique available to you: waterboarding. In this interrogation method, the subject is strapped to a board and positioned with his feet slightly above his head. A cloth is wrapped tightly around his face, and water is poured over his head, creating the sensation of asphyxiation. While this may cause great distress, it is harmless when conducted properly. CIA members routinely practice this technique on each other, and most people give in to the demands of the interrogator is less than a minute.

You, however, decided that it would not be morally acceptable to use this interrogation technique with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. After all, in America we take the high road, and waterboarding the man who conceived the idea of 9/11 would make us morally equivalent to Khmer Rouge, Hitler, Idi Amin, or Saddam, evil dictators who tortured, mutilated, and killed people in their quest to torture, mutilate, and kill more people.

As a result, the information which could have prevented the attack on the Liberty Tower remained locked inside of the head of one of the most evil men alive.

You are about to address the family members of those who were killed. What will you say to them? How will you justify your decision? How will you make the case that it was better for their loved ones to be murdered than to subject Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to two minutes of agony? How will you convince these people that it was morally superior to assure the comfort of a terrorist than to protect the lives of innocent Americans? Come on! What are you going to say?

Fortunately, this scenario is only in our imagination. In the real world, a defiant Khalid held out against many other interrogation techniques, until as a last resort they proceeded to waterboarding. Two minutes into the procedure, a broken Mohammed begged for relief. His extensive confession led to the thwarting of a number of terror plots (including the imminent operation to blow up Liberty Tower) and the capture of dozens of terrorists in many different countries. Mohammed’s case was not unusual in how quickly it worked. It was unusual for how long Mohammed was able to withstand it. Most terrorists break down in half that time. It is not known exactly how often waterboarding is employed, but it has been made known that it has worked every time it has been tried. Information obtained in this way has led to the capture of numerous terrorists and the prevention of many deadly plots, saving an untold number of lives.

The claim that waterboarding is unethical does not hold up to closer scrutiny. To illustrate this, let us contrast waterboarding to the most common approach which involved prolonged sleep deprivation combined with exposure to cold. This can take days or weeks to break the captive down to the point of giving up the desired information, often resulting in long-term physical or psychological trauma. And even then it is much more likely that the subject, given that much time to consider his options, will provide false or misleading information. Waterboarding, on the other hand, lasts for a few fleeting minutes, and carries the least risk of long-term harm. Not only is it more effective, it is also the most humane.

A form of mercy is extended to the murderous terrorist which he would not extend to his innocent victims: the anguish is stopped the moment he expressed a desire for it to be so. While the terrorist seeks to commit horrendous acts of mass murder, leaving as many mangled corpses behind as possible, waterboarding permits the terrorist to live to see another day, unscathed by his momentary ordeal. But it provides us the intelligence we urgently need to save innocent lives.

Our government is not only justified in using this technique with people such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they are morally obligated to use it.