Kindergarten Condom

Last week John McCain released an ad attacking BO for his failure to do anything to improve education. The ad points out that his one and only accomplishment in this field is to support comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners.

Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the BO campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. Daily Kos wackjobs were quick to jump on, calling the ad "racist" and "pro-pedophile."

If this claim from the BO camp was true, it would not mitigate the charge that BO failed to improve the dismal education provided by public schools in the primary topics they are responsible for teaching: math, English, science, history, geography, etc.

But the claim is not true.

The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. I encourage anyone interested in the facts about what BO supported to read the bill.

A press release announcing the introduction of the bill quoted the bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, as saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

The bill appears to have three major purposes:

1. To mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual, medically accurate, and objective”. Fine.

2. To increase the number of children receiving sex education. To do this, it amended the existing law requiring the teaching of sex education, contraception, and AIDS prevention. The old law covered grades 6 through 12. That was amended to cover Kindergarten through twelfth grade.

3. To remove value-based language from the existing law. For instance, the following language was removed from the existing law:

Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.
Classes shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

That language was replaced with the following:

Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Near the end of the bill there is one paragraph addressing inappropriate touching:

Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

But this paragraph is not the primary or central focus of the bill, as BO suggests.

In the wake of the recent controversy about this bill, Senator Martinez, one of the bills sponsors, was asked about the purpose of the bill:

I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?“Absolutely not.”

Careful reading of the bill brings me to the conclusion that the bill is about much more than preventing inappropriate touching. It mandates that topics such as contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases be taught to Kindergarteners in Illinois’ public schools. That is BO’s sole contribution to improving the education of Illinois’ kids. I wouldn’t be proud of it either.

Speaking for the whole world

Hollywood actor Matt Damon, who is more qualified than the rest of us to decide who ought to be President by merit of having appeared in movies, had the following to say about Sarah Palin.

I think there is a really good chance that Sarah Palin could president. And I think that's a really scary thing because I don't know anything about her. I don't think in eight weeks I'm going to know anything about her.

Matt, welcome to the information age. If you don't know anything about Sarah Palin it can only be because you have not taken advantage of the reams of news coverage and public records documenting Governor Palin's career.

I would like to know what you know about BO? No one else I have talked to can name one significant accomplishment from BO's career. They can't point me to an important bill he wrote and carried through the legislature to passage. They can't tell me what a community organizer actually DOES. So far all we know about BO is that he can beat Alan Keyes in Illinois.

Obama jumps the pig

Sarah Palin: Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.

Barack Obama: You can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig.

I've got a bridge to sell you

Check out this web site which computes "Your Obama tax cut."

Now before you get too excited, remember that a campaign promise is only as good as the person making it. Remember back to 1992 when Bill Clinton was running on a platform which included a "middle-class tax cut." Did you ever see it? Me neither. Just a few months after he took office, he announced that cutting taxes on the middle class was just not possible. Instead he pushed through the biggest middle-class tax increase in history.

In addition, recognize that BO has proposed tax increases in a number of other areas. He has said that he will increase the payroll tax, capital gains tax, interest income tax, death tax, and corporate tax rates. For those of you who like corporate taxes because you think that BO will really be sticking it to those big evil corporations, remember that corporate taxes are only paid by people who work for corporations, own stock in corporations, or buy things from corporations.

BO has proposed more than $335 billion in new spending annually. If we know anything about Democrats it is that their appetite for money is insatiable. All of the wonderful new programs which BO wants to inflict upon us will suck up all available money and preclude any tax cuts. Make no mistake, taxes will only go up with Obama in the White House.

Quarterly report

My brilliantly conceived business plan to match Exxon's $14 billion profit by selling bumper stickers on Zazzle.com is off to a slow start.

At 40 cents profit per bumper sticker, I need to sell 35 billion bumper stickers to catch up to Exxon. This means that every man, woman, and child on the planet must buy five.

Unfortunately, Exxon has a significant head start and a better developed base of customers. As of Monday September 8, I have sold 4 bumper stickers, generating $1.60 in revenue.

Some analysts have suggested that I have undermined my market by giving away more bumper stickers than I have sold, but I look at the practice as viral marketing, which in the long run is sure to result in more sales through word of mouth.

Others have questioned my strategy based on the observation that the Obama bin Biden ticket is due to be relegated to the ash-heap of history in roughly 56 days, leaving me a very short window of opportunity to reach my goal.

I address all of these very valid concerns with one response: diversification. Instead of just the one bumper sticker, you can now find t-shirts, various color schemes, and a few other designs. There are sure to be five items to appeal to every human on the planet. I hope Zazzle has the capacity to handle the coming flood of orders!

Chocolate New Orleans

In honor of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and their new Republican Governor, Bob Jindal and their much improved handling of Gustov, I am reposting my recipe for a Chocolate New Orleans posted exclusively here on February 28, 2006. It appears that Nagin was concerned that another failure like Katrina, where he left hundreds of New Orleans school buses to be inundated by floodwater instead of using them to evacuate people in front of the storm, might result in voters telling him to "get your butt moving out of New Orleans right now".

1. Start off with a large brownie with chocolate chunks baked into it.
2. Apply a generous layer of chocolate mousse.
3. Add a second brownie.
4. Lay down a thin layer of chocolate pudding.
5. Add a third brownie.
6. Put two large scoops of chocolate ice cream on top.
7. Cover it with a generous layer of hot fudge.
8. Sprinkle dark chocolate shavings on the hot fudge.
9. Have a transvestite from the French Quarter pee all over it.

Change that's hard to find

Last week in Denver there was a lot of talk about change.

Barry Obama tried to paint himself as some sort of new, post-partisan Democrat.

But how much "change" does he really have?

To find out, let's compare BO's platform to John Kerry's 2004 platform which was soundly rejected by voters.

The two are so similar that it is easier to note the changes than the similarities. Point by point, Obama wants to do the same things the voters said "no" to in 2004. There are some minor details altered, but it is surprisingly devoid of new ideas.

Both platforms extend Bush's tax cuts for the middle class, but repeal them for the "rich". The definition of "rich" has changed from $200,000 in yearly income to $250,000. That's change you can believe in, if you make between $200,000 and $249,999.

The 2004 platform proposed a major increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wealth transfer provision which gives refunds to the poorest working Americans. The centerpiece of the 2008 tax plan is a radical new idea to help the poorest Americans: an increase in the EITC!

In 2004 there was a plan to "pay for child care and elder care". This time it just says that government will "help pay for child care." No mention of elders, but that is probably just an oversight, unless jettisoning the elderly is the change we can believe in.

The platforms for 2004 and 2008 both promise to change the tax code to make it less rewarding for U.S. corporations to locate operations abroad. Kerry also promised also to reduce the corporate-tax rate a bit, an acknowledgment that the U.S.'s high taxes were undermining our competitiveness.

This convention's plan has ditched that carrot, and replaced it with the silliest passage in platform history: ``We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector.'' Obama's plan to help the manufacturing sector appears to be, ``Unleash the bureaucrats and professors.''

In 2004, when oil was trading for $40 a barrel, the platform called for some additional exploration. Now, with oil over $100 per barrel, BO doesn't call for any new exploration. Instead, just inflate your tires.

For Social Security, both platforms promise to protect it, and not to privatize it. The platform this time around also advocates automatic enrollment for 401(k)s.

In 2004, Kerry promised to use tough "pay as you go" rules to enforce fiscal discipline. Those rules were adopted in 2007, but they proved to be ineffective, as the budget deficit under the Democrat-controlled Congress rose from $248 billion in 2006 to $357 billion in 2008, mainly because Democrats voted to ignore the "pay as you go" rules when they got in the way of their big spending plans. The fact that "pay as you go" has been shown to be a failure doesn't seem to make any difference to the Party Platform. The same "pay as you go" language is in BO's 2008 platform. What makes anyone believe that it will work this time? After all, it was not President Bush who voted to ignore the rule, it was Democrats in Congress.

So when you line it all up, the promise of "change" is just a promise to do the same old things that Democrats always do. More taxes, more government intrusion, more wealth transfer, more entitlements. In the past it failed every time, but that is only because it wasn't done by the right people. BO is the right person because he can give a really good speech. This time it will work. Really. It will.

Socialized Medicine -- keep the change

Part of the "Change" BO wants to inflict on America is to socialize our medical care. He throws around numbers like "47 million uninsured Americans" and points to the medical utopias of government-run medicine in Canada and Europe. Naturally, the 47 million figure is very misleading, because most of those people are young, healthy people who choose to self-insure. Eleven million more are illegal immigrants, and five million are non-citizens, neither of which would be covered under Obama's plan. Very few of those 47 million are the poor and elderly, as Obama tried to portray them. There are already government programs to provide health care to those people.

Let's take a look at the socialized health-care systems Obama wants to emulate.

Take the much-vaunted Canadian system. More than 825,000 Canadian citizens are currently on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary treatments. Fifteen years ago, the average wait between a referral from a primary-care doctor to treatment by a specialist was around nine weeks. Today, that wait is over 16 weeks.

That’s almost double what doctors consider clinically reasonable. As Canadian physician Brian Day explained to The New York Times, Canada “is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

In part, these waits are due to a doctor shortage. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries in doctors per thousand people.

Why so few doctors? Over the past decade, about 11 percent of physicians trained in Canadian medical schools have moved to the United States. That’s because doctors’ salaries in Canada are negotiated, set and paid for by provincial governments and held down by cost-conscious budget analysts. Today, in fact, the average Canadian doctor earns only 42 percent of what a doctor earns in the United States.

Canada also limits access to common medical technologies. When compared with other OECD countries, Canada is 13th out of 24 in access to magnetic resonance imagings, 18th of 24 in access to computed tomography scanners, and seventh of 17 in access to mammograms.

The problems plaguing Canada are characteristic of all universal health care systems.

In Britain, more than 1 million sick citizens are currently waiting for hospital admission. Another 200,000 are waiting just to get on a waiting list. Each year, Britain’s National Health Service cancels around 100,000 operations.

Britain even has a government agency explicitly tasked with limiting people’s access to prescription drugs. Euphemistically called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, the agency determines which treatments the British health care system covers. More often than not, saving money takes priority over saving lives.

In 2008, for instance, NICE refused to approve the lung cancer drug Tarceva. Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients — and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the United Kingdom — NICE determined that the drug was too expensive to cover relative to its effectiveness.

Britain’s behavior is typical — every European government rations drugs to save money. Eighty-five new drugs hit the U.S. market between 1998 and 2002. During that same time period, only 44 of those drugs became available in Europe.

According to an August 2008 study published in Lancet Oncology, the renowned British medical journal, Americans have a better than five-year survival rate for 13 of the 16 most prominent cancers when compared with their European and Canadian counterparts.

With breast cancer, for instance, the survival rate among American women is 83.9 percent. For women in Britain, it’s just 69.7 percent. For men with prostate cancer, the survival rate is 91.9 percent here but just 73.7 percent in France and 51.1 percent in Britain. American men and women are more than 35 percent more likely to survive colon cancer than their British counterparts.

The driving factor which makes American health care the best in the world is free enterprise driven by the limitless opportunity to profit from your own work and innovation. This profit motive, much maligned by liberals, is responsible for America's status as world leader in producing modern medical techniques, equipment and medicines, not only for our own people, but to export around the world.

The United States produces over half of the $175 billion in health care technology products purchased globally. In 2004, the federal government funded medical research to the tune of $18.4 billion. By contrast, the European Union — which has a significantly larger population than the United States — allocated funds equal to just $3.7 billion for medical research.

Between 1999 and 2005, the United States was responsible for 71 percent of the sales of new pharmaceutical drugs. The next two largest pharmaceutical markets — Japan and Germany — account for just 4 percent each.

Squelching that productivity and innovation by nationalizing the medical industry would be a change, but not a change for the better.

Why I envy my wife

He's at it again

Today the Democrat hero, Bill Clinton was speaking in Denver. Here is what he had to say:

"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Maybe he should have called them candidate XY and XX.

After a pause, the former President added, "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

Yeah. And nothing to do with your desperate attempts to create a legacy for yourself, either.

Am I reading this wrong?

He is Obama's pastor of twenty years.

Obama called him his mentor, spiritual advisor, and friend.

He performed the marriage of Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their kids.

They flew around the world together and hobnobbed with luminaries like Louis Farrakhan and Muammar Qadhafi.

Obama cited him as the inspiration for his book "The Audacity of Hope."

He is the one of whom Obama said: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother... These people are a part of me."

So why is Jeremiah Wright nowhere to be found on the schedule of appearances for the Democrat Convention?

A historic second

I predict that tonight will be the SECOND time in her adult life that Michelle Obama will be proud of America.

Shameless plug

This is a shameless plug for my new bumper sticker design which you can now buy from Zazzle.com. They are cheaper by the dozen, so order one for everyone you know.

Thunderbird is so right

Another demonstration of Thunderbird's remarkably intelligent filtering software.

The question is: Will America fall for the scam?

Little Joey Biden

An Obama-Biden ticket would be one of the most fun things in recent memory because Biden has spent the past couple of years feeding us some great material on topics including McCain's strengths, Obama's weaknesses, the importance of experience, and the war in Iraq. When Hillary attacked Obama for being vacuous, inexperienced and running a campaign based on empty rhetoric and silver-tongued speeches, Obama responded by pointing out the importance of words:

"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? Just speeches?"

Remembering Obama’s point that words mean things, let’s take a look at some of Joe Biden’s words which will come back to bite Obama and Biden.

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

Biden on Obama and Hillary, in an interview with the Huffington Post: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007, Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate. But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.”

Biden speaking in Iowa campaign ad: “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

Biden described Obama, saying "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." I guess that makes all the rest dirty, ignorant, incoherent, dimwits.

In October 2007, Biden was interviewed by the Washington Post editorial board. Here is how he explained the superior test results from Iowa schools: "There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with...." It’s those dirty ignorant incoherent dimwits again.

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security. We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Joe, by his own admission, has the capacity to fall in love with his own voice and wander off on tangents about his life that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

During the 2006 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the Post's Dana Milbank wrote this of Biden's performance:

"Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)."

And my personal favorite: "You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…I’m not joking!"

At the South Carolina Rotary Club. December 2006, Senator Biden of Delaware reminded us that Delaware was “a slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”

We are supposed to be relieved by Joe Biden’s selection because it is reassuring to have a grownup on the ticket. Maybe we should listen to the grownup and not elect someone with 142 days of experience in the US Senate.

A very young Michael Phelps

Jive Talk Express

Barry Obama has been asked about his votes as Illinois Senator to kill a bill which would have protected babies born alive after attempted abortions.

In 2001, Barry was the only member of the Illinois Senate to oppose the bill, and when a second bill came to his committee in 2003, he cast the deciding vote to kill the bill. A similar bill in the US Senate passed unanimously, and was even endorsed by abortion's biggest fan, Senator Barbara Boxer.

Barry Obama is very embarrassed by his voting record on this bill, as indicated by his efforts to explain it away using demonstrable false excuses. Last week, Barry gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he claimed that he opposed the born-alive bills because they lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade and therefore, he claims, they would have weakened that Holy Grail of liberal inventions.

I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Someone is indeed lying.

Senate Bill SB1082, the bill in question, contains an Amendment 001 which specifically states:

1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.".

This Amendment is identical to the language of the Federal bill he claims he would have supported. The Committee voting record shows that Barry Obama voted for this Amendment, which passed unanimously, and then proceeded to vote along with five other Democrats to kill the bill, in a 6 to 4 vote.

This proves not only that his explanation for his vote is false, but that he knows it to be false. The truth is that Barry took a more radical position than Barbara Boxer, opposing a law to protect babies born alive from being left to die.

The phone made me do it

In this tale of tragedy and woe, we are reminded that cell-phones are the cause of everything.

HIGHLAND, Calif. — Authorities say a 16-year-old girl who died after losing control of her car had been texting on her cell phone moments before the accident.

Kayla Preuss, of Highland, was driving on the Interstate 10 Freeway in Redlands when she lost control of her car and crashed. She died of head injuries.

Authorities say Preuss had been driving drunk and was speeding. But another factor may have contributed to the crash.

Phone records show Preuss was texting just before the accident. Her cell phone, which was flipped open, was found resting on the floorboard by her feet.

Preuss' mother Kelly said she hopes the accident will make other people think before texting and driving.

Surely it was not the unsupervised sixteen-year-old drunk speeding female driver. It was the cell phone's fault.

She died of head injuries. No mention in the article that these injuries were congenital.

McCain smokes Obama...again

Obama currently stands at 1.5% ahead of McCain in the polls. At this point in 2004, John Kerry was much further ahead of George Bush. At this point in 2000, Al Gore was much further ahead of George Bush. At this point in 1988, Michael Dukakis was much further ahead of Bush Sr. At this point in 1980, Jimmy Carter was much further ahead of Ronald Reagan. At this point in 1972, George McGovern was much further ahead of Richard Nixon. The one thing they all have in common is that as America found out who they were and what they stood for, the initial lead that these liberal Democrats enjoyed evaporated away.

And twice more in the past few days, John McCain has clearly and unequivocally smoked Barry Obama.

The first case was in their responses to Russia’s aggression against Georgia. John McCain immediately denounced Russia’s actions as unacceptable and called on the world to stand solidly in support of Georgia. Barry Obama issued a wishy-washy, namby pamby statement saying that Russian and Georgia should be nicer and talk about their differences and maybe they should try holding hands and wearing tie-dyes because that always makes *me* feel so much better. Then he said that John McCain was shooting from the hip with his strong denunciation of Russian aggression. Two days later, Barry revised his statement to say that Russia really shouldn’t have invaded Georgia and they should get time out. Several days later he issued a third statement sounding much like John McCain’s “shooting from the hip” first statement, but suggesting that McCain was reckless to get it right the first time.

The second case was on Saturday when Barry Obama and John McCain answered questions from Rick Warren. Or at least John McCain answered the questions, sounding confident and forthright. Barry, who reported $4.2 million in household income for 2007, gave responses like “To answer the with specificity would be above my pay grade.” To fully appreciate how completely McCain smoked Obama, just look at the whining from the Obama camp immediately afterwards. They wasted no time in suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that John McCain “cheated” by listening to the questions in advance. I suppose that his vastly superior performance could not be explained by the fact that McCain gave direct, honest answers while Obama was searching for ambiguous, politically expedient ways to obscure his real opinions.

Look for more McCain victories and Obama excuses as the debates begin.

American Dream

Check out this draft copy of the Democrat Party platform, based on the conventional liberal conviction that the American Dream is achieved through entitlement programs from a benevolent Federal Government.

On page 29:

We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era -- with the same new hope and new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal and John F. Kennedy to the New Frontier. We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who have lost their homes, and people who have lost their way.

Perhaps Barry Obama's plan to help people who have lost their way is to give them a GPS navigation system. If it has a built-in tire gauge, all the better.

British Backfire

Want to see that celebrated British stiff upper lip begin to quiver? Just mention to Parliament or press that England is not the isle of tranquility envisioned more than a century ago, when the nation began the systematic disarmament of its citizens.

After years of chipping away at private firearm ownership through passage of a rash of seemingly innocuous rules and regulations, with the adoption of a total handgun ban in 1997, the British achieved what was hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. At the time, leading newspapers in England heralded this "restraint on personal liberty" as "essential to the happiness" of the country's law-abiding.

The credo was a simple but vacuous one: fewer guns mean fewer crimes. Essentially, it was the legal intention that "nobody, except a soldier, sailor or policeman" should ever have access to a handgun. Simultaneously, the courts took up the cause, prosecuting those who resisted violent attacks with any sort of armed reaction. Over time, it became evident that predators were apt to be judged less harshly than victims who used any type of device, even a stout stick, in an act of self-defense.

According to the utopian scheme of things, gun bans were supposed to evoke a kinder and gentler world-a social paradise concocted by politicians who believed that civilized society could only be made crime-free through the confiscation of all arms. At the same time, it seemed pertinent for the government to also divest British citizenry of all normal human reactions regarding self-preservation.

The results have been as tragic as they were predictable.

A litany of failures were apparent as early as the year 2000, when CBS News reported that law and order in Britain was deteriorating at a rapid rate, while the country was experiencing a crime surge much more severe than any recorded within the United States.

"Have a nice daydream," was the retort fired back at CBS from editorialists with the London Mirror, the same daily newspaper fond of pointing out that the British crime rate was "nothing at all compared to the Wild West culture on the other side of the Atlantic, where every other car is carrying a gun."

However, in time, in stories sandwiched between inside pages, the newspaper conceded that CBS was right. "Britain has overtaken the U.S. for all major crimes," the newspaper admitted. In fact, the motherland was indeed racing ahead by a substantial lead, sporting a crime rate in England and Wales that at times peaked at as much as 60 percent above crime statistics here in the States, with gun crimes especially prominent.

So how could a nation operating under an alleged discipline of total disarmament suddenly become victim to a spike of armed, violent crime? Especially a country that advanced the notion that individuals had a right to personal security more than 100 years before it became a fixture in America?

Consider that William Blackstone, an early British champion of working-class citizens, argued that the right of self-protection was one no government could take away. Another champion of individual rights, A.V. Dicey, cautioned that if the government discouraged self-help, then loyal subjects became the slaves of ruffians.

It's no wonder that the U.S. Constitution would feature a Bill of Rights insisting on a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. For generations following the British insistence on equal rights for its citizens, including the right to self-defense, subjects of the Crown were among the safest and most law-abiding in the world, with a crime rate that truly was the envy of its neighbors.

Things began to disintegrate in the 20th century with the passage of laws that increasingly restricted private possession of firearms, along with edicts forbidding the right to carry arms for self-protection. Eventually, British law determined that even vigorous self-defense could only be "reasonable in the circumstances." By 1969, British police officers were told by higher authorities "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person."

British wags were quick to point out that the justice system appeared to have its philosophical hat on backwards. One commentator said the courts seemed to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater consequence than the safety of the robber's victim. Such comments soon were both numerous and scathing, and not without good reason.

Grumblings in the British press increasingly mirrored grassroots opinions about the plight of the law-abiding: "The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita, higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding."

In 2002, the chances of being mugged in London were approximately six times greater than in New York City, cultural center of the "lawless Wild West" so often mocked by British snobbery.

Another accused Tony Blair of going "total: blame everyone, ban everything."

Essentially, the firearm issue never has been about the guns themselves, but more about eroding social mores balanced against the rights of the individual. And while America has thus far managed to protect its Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-protection (borrowed for use in our Constitution from the 1689 English Bill of Rights), many of the English rank and file clamor to have theirs back as societal mayhem takes advantage of the vacuum created by disarmament.

Dismayed Brits point to their country's egregious gun laws, the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy, and argue that they not only didn't reduce violent crime but managed, as documented by the British press, to leave "law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals confident (their) victims have neither the means nor legal rights to resist them." The BBC reported that gun bans "seem to have little impact on the criminal underworld," while the use of handguns to commit crimes rose 40 percent during the two years following the total ban on them.

Simultaneously, the number of innocent citizens robbed at gunpoint rose some 53 percent. In 2002, the chances of being mugged in London were approximately six times greater than in New York City, cultural center of the "lawless Wild West" so often mocked by British snobbery. Overall, rates of assault, robbery and burglary shot past those recorded in America and, maybe most ominously, 53 percent of British burglaries were said to occur while the residents were still in their homes.

Even so, British lawmakers have stuck to the notion that people don't need to protect themselves, because society can and will. And, in a defenseless populace besieged by a growing climate of violence, police urge individuals witnessing a crime to walk on by as if nothing had happened; to let the pros handle it . . . if only they could.

Contrast this to attitudes in the U.S., where law enforcement professionals are among the first to acknowledge that police can't be everywhere and can't protect everyone from criminal attack, and that in many instances individuals have not only a right but a responsibility to protect lives, family and property. At the same time, the majority of candid police officials in this country openly admit that it would be nearly impossible to rid the nation of firearms if guns were banned, or to keep illegal guns from entering the country.

British citizens have found this out the hard way. They found it out in a delivery truck allegedly loaded only with frozen pizzas, a truck with a Croatian driver carrying smuggled firearms in the midst of all that cheese and crust. They also found it in the post-war economy of the Balkans, a region accustomed to supplying guns to those willing to supply cash in return, no matter what laws may be on the books. They found it in the numbers of deactivated, collectible guns refitted to work on the street. And the English have found, to their dismay, that governmental decrees don't necessarily receive consensus respect. There are and will continue to be firearms in Britain, even if Parliament demands the surrender of everything from fine double barrel skeet guns to the most common child's air rifle. The proof, no matter the amount of bureaucratic gibberish to the contrary, continues to generate headlines that shock the nation.

British society remains outraged by stories like the one involving the murder of an 11-year-old boy, a bright and personable child walking home from football practice, gunned down for no apparent reason by another youth riding a bicycle. Brits have seen gunfire erupt in a courtroom when armed men sought to free two defendants in a nightclub shooting. They've listened to reports concerning two men killed by automatic gun fire in what had been a quiet residential neighborhood, and read headlines about the 19-year-old woman killed while walking along a main street in East London, murdered by thugs who sought to steal her cell phone.

According to the Manchester (England) Guardian, Manchester residents fear that the city is slipping into what they refer to as "Gunchester days" due to gang activity and shootings. And there's little consolation to be found in the fact that Parliament promised it couldn't happen, that the civilian population would be compensated for the loss of personal liberty by heightened law enforcement-a sad state of affairs from a country that gave the world the Magna Carta.

Maybe the most chilling scenarios generated by Britain's attempt to legislate a disarmed society are the tribulations of those simply seeking to survive it. Take for instance the English homeowner who used a toy gun to detain burglars caught in his home. When police arrived, the homeowner himself was arrested for using a fake firearm to threaten or intimidate.

Or consider the plight of an elderly woman who fired a cap pistol in an attempt to frighten away a group of young rowdies who besieged her. She was arrested for placing someone in fear.

Or how about the businessman who, during a mugging, pulled an ornamental knife from his cane and used it to slash his way out of what he feared to be a deadly confrontation. Even though he thought he was on the verge of losing his life, the petroleum executive was convicted of carrying an "offensive weapon."

Rather than face the fact that gun control has actually opened a Pandora's box of violence rather than closed the lid more tightly, an arrogant Parliament and societal upper crust have instead chosen to punish those they can most easily-the remaining Brits with backbone enough to fight for their rights as law-abiding citizens. After all, gangs and street toughs shoot back-and have the firearms to do so in spite of propaganda to the contrary.

Perhaps the time has come for Britain to rethink its restrictions on the rights of good citizens, and focus on the mayhem routinely practiced by the bad ones. If Parliament would only do the right thing and take necessary steps to reinstate the most basic human right of self-preservation, then maybe those of us here in the United States would resist the urge to say, "I told you so," and instead cheer the resurrection of liberty back in the land where it started.

It's a matter of judgment

This proves once for all that John Edwards has even worse judgment than Prince Charles.

Time for a special session

Troops, it is time to take action. Let President Bush know that we want him to call a special session of Congress to vote on the Republican's comprehensive energy plan. Nancy Pelosi refused to vote on it, knowing that anyone who voted against it would have major problems getting re-elected. As a result, it would most likely pass. With gas around $4 a gallon, we deserve an up or down vote on this important plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and boost the supply of oil. Contact President Bush today by email or phone and let him know that this is important enough to warrant calling a special session of Congress. Don't let the cowardly Nancy Pelosi and Barry Obama dodge their duty to the country.

Email: president@whitehouse.gov
Phone: 202-456-1111

Democrats weigh in

Pelosi and Obama sittin' in a tree

Last week, to much fanfare and media frenzy, and fawning interviews on The Today Show, The View, and This Week, the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman in politics, the glass-ceiling shattering, the history-making Nancy Pelosi launched her groundbreaking new book.

In the first week, she sold 2,737 books. One out of every 111,362 people in this great country rushed headlong to lay down good money for this book, propelling the book on a meteoric rise to 41st place on the New York Times Non-Fiction bestseller list. There were no reports of hapless bystanders trampled in the stampede to the book store.

In the same week, Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality debuts at Number One on the New York Times Bestseller List.

Barry Obama has been trying to tie McCain to Bush. However, there is much more similarity between Obama and Pelosi. And President Bush is a lot more popular than Congress. So John McCain should respond by highlighting the association between Obama and Pelosi.

Keep the change

If John McCain wants to win this election, there is one thing he must do immediately: hire me to run his campaign.

His campaign has gained some ground in the past week, striking at some of his opponent’s weaknesses, questioning his ability to lead, and calling Obama on playing the race card. We all know that Obama is all sizzle and no steak, but McCain needs to do better. Show some energy and some passion for the principles you want to advance as President.

Instead we get ads like this: "Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago. Only McCain has taken on Big Tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He'll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again." This is an ad I would expect from Barry. Fighting corruption is certainly a good thing, but the government can't make America prosper by fighting the companies which do all the hiring, innovating, and producing which propels our economy.

Here are the issues I would be shouting from the rooftops if I was McCain’s campaign director:

1. The economy. Barack Obama’s policies mean more taxes, more government regulations, higher gas prices, a government-run healthcare disaster, and massively increased transfer of wealth, all in the name of “economic justice” and environmental extremism. But there is nothing “just” about appropriating money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who did not. If I did that, they would throw me in jail, and rightfully so. Barack Obama would decimate our nation’s economy. John McCain would not raise taxes or increase government intrusion into our lives. He would fight earmarks, expand the drilling for oil, and use free-market principles to grow the economy.

2. The War on Islamofascism. Barack Obama’s ignorance and naivety on foreign policy has been repeatedly displayed by his own statements. Barack would surrender Iraq to the terrorists and meet without preconditions with the thugs and tin-horn dictators from countries which hate America and want to obliterate Israel. Obama would be a pathetically weak President without the spine or the wherewithal to stand up for America’s interests. We need a President with the intestinal fortitude as well as the knowledge and experience to unapologetically lead the greatest nation on earth, not outsource our foreign policy decision making to the UN. With Obama, all you get is namby-pamby feel-good platitudes. I don’t want a “Citizen of the World” as our President. I want someone who is American and proud of it, with the good sense to not spend twenty years attending a Church which spews racist, anti-American hatred. John McCain has loads of experience and knowledge of foreign policy. Comparing McCain to Obama in terms of who I would trust with our national security, McCain wins hands down. They are not even in the same league.

3. Energy independence. This is directly related to both items above. Using our own energy will greatly reduce prices and stop the funding of governments hostile to America. Obama’s plan is to tell people to inflate their tires. The real solution is a lot more complicated than that. We need a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy. In the short term, we need to drill for oil wherever it can be found: off the coast, in ANWR, and any other place where it is economically viable to extract it. The government should not stand in the way of using our resources. In addition, we need to build refineries and nuclear power plants. In the long term, we need to develop viable alternative sources of energy, perhaps hydrogen-fueled cars or fusion power plants. John McCain is right to encourage free market capitalism to be the driving force in that effort. If a certain technology is not economically viable, government should not be subsidizing it or mandating it as Obama supported doing with ethanol. When the market demands it, there will be no stopping the ingenuity of our entrepreneurial engine of productivity.

Ronald Reagan upset the hapless Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential election by focusing on three key issues. He promised that if he was elected President, he would lower taxes, scale back government, and strengthen the military. In 2008 the issues have changed, but by energetically espousing his positions and the principles on which they are built and demonstrating the superiority of his leadership in these specific areas, John McCain could win the election and go to the White House with a clear mandate.

Organized labor minus the labor

B. Hussein Obama doesn't have much on his resume to brag about, so he talks a lot about his time as a "community organizer" in Chicago. However, Obama is vague about what exactly a community organizer actually does, leaving people to imagine him volunteering at the local soup kitchen or running a neighborhood sports league.

The reality is that a community organizer is like organized labor, only without the labor.

The job of a community organizer is to consolidate power and control for his own political advantage. It is a bare-knuckled, old-fashioned form of the political power grab born on the streets of Chicago.

Community organizing began in the Depression-era slums of Chicago's South Side when Saul Alinsky organized the people living in one of the worst slums in America, the "Back of the Yards." Alinsky described this area as "a cesspool of hate: the Poles, Slovaks, Germans, Negroes, Mexicans, and Lithuanians all hated each other and all of them hated the Irish, who returned the sentiment in spades." But Alinsky didn't need to get the people to love each other. He just needed them to work the system together, to extract handouts from the government, making them dependent on him. As Alinsky once put it, “to fuck your enemies, you’ve first got to seduce your enemies.”

Alinsky’s key insight was that poor people in places like Back of the Yards do not have access to traditional forms of power, but they do have numbers. He believed that if enough poor people realized that it was in their interest to work together and fight for particular issues, they could pressure people in power to give them what they want.

Just as labor unions organize workers to get better pay, benefits, and working conditions, community organizers use collective pressure to make demands. The major difference is that community organizers are looking for government handouts, not better compensation for productive labor. Hence I say that a community organizer is like organized labor, only without the labor.

Alinsky devised a strategy which he later taught at the Industrial Areas Foundation. One of the central principles he taught was to not rely on high-minded ideals like “brotherly love” or “the common good” to motivate people to join together for a particular goal. Instead, a community organizer looks for ways to appeal directly to a person’s self-interest. Looking out for number one drives every level of community organizing.

The first phase of community organizing is to build up a base of support by seeking out the leaders in an area, finding out what their self-interest is, and building a coalition of people willing to join together for a common cause. The community organizer doesn’t have to care at all about that cause, because his objective is his own empowerment, not a desire to help others.

Next, the community organizer identifies “the mark,” a government official who can get him what he wants. Perhaps he chairs an appropriations committee which controls the funding for a particular program. The community organizer scheduled a meeting with “the mark” where leaders, carefully cultivated and coached by the organizer, will present their demands in a meticulously scripted manner. The objective is not only to let “the mark” know their desires, but to impress on him that it is in his self-interest to comply. The stick is far more important than the carrot here, so they make it clear that failing to produce the goods will result in negative repercussions. If they have blackmail material available, all the better.

While it is vital that the community organizer convinces his base that he is looking out for their interests, his ultimate goal is to use them to gain personal power by getting as many people as possible to look to him for provision. Thus community organizing is married to collectivist ideologies such as socialism and diametrically opposed to conservative principles such as self-reliance and free market capitalism.

Barack Obama is schooled in the Alinsky-style art of political intimidation known euphemistically as “community organizing.” Recognizing this fact helps in understanding Obama’s recent move towards the center in matters such as his vote on the FISA bill. As a community organizer, he is a student of power and he knows not to worry so much about the power he has. Instead he is concerned with gaining control over the power he does not have. In this bare-knuckle form of old-school liberal politics, the only thing that can hurt you is the power you cannot control. Obama’s flip-flops are the community organizer working to build new alliances and neutralize threats to his power. It’s what any Alinskyite worth his salt would do.

Squelching the rumor

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today denied rumors that he is considering a run for the Presidency.

The Senator, best known for taking principled stands against Republicans, dismissed the reports as "baseless speculation."

No reporters attended the McCain press conference, as they were all covering the "Obama walks on water" event on the Sea of Galilee.

For weeks, the blogosphere has been abuzz with chatter speculating that the former POW and supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants may soon start to build an organization, raise funds, get out his message, espouse the superiority of his experience, ideas, and ideology, champion the cause of freedom, and point out the numerous weaknesses in the one declared candidate.

What do these things have in common?

What do these things have in common?

• Acne
• aggressive weeds
• amphibians breeding earlier
• anxiety treatment
• Atlantic Ocean less salty
• Atlantic Ocean more salty
• Avalanches reduced
• Avalancehes increased
• Snow in Baghdad
• Shortage of Beer
• brain eating amoebae
• circumcision in decline
• early marriages
• frogs with extra heads
• killer cornflakes
• NFL threatened
• noctilucent clouds
• opera house to be destroyed
• popcorn rise
• railroad tracks deformed
• sexual promiscuity
• witchcraft executions

Give up?

They have all been blamed on man-made "global warming."

And that is just the tip of the rapidly growing iceberg with an "endangered" polar bear clinging on for dear life. For the full list, check out this web site.

What is particularly remarkable is that global warming continues to accomplish these amazing feats in spite of the fact that the global temperature has not increased in the past eight years.

The peace of God's presence

For a news story about Senator Kennedy to turn into an opportunity to praise God is nothing short of a miracle.

Last week as I was driving to work, the secular radio station was broadcasting a news story about Senator Kennedy and his brain tumor. They mentioned that there is a Fort Worth resident who has the same, uncommon and highly aggressive form of brain cancer. His name is Gary Morey. My ears perked up. I know him! Gary used to attend our Church, and we were both regular participants in the Thursday morning men's breakfast at Rise and Shine, where you can get a great breakfast for under five bucks. Next thing I know he is on the radio talking about how God gives him the strength to face terminal cancer.

This morning I had the privilege of getting together with Gary Morey for breakfast. The servers at Rise and Shine know me vaguely, but they are on a first-name basis with Gary. It had been several months since I saw Gary, so as we enjoyed our coffee, eggs, sausage, hash browns, and toast we caught up on what is happening in our lives. You wouldn't know by looking at Gary or by listening to him talk and laugh that he has terminal brain cancer. The cancer was first detected in May of 2007, and doctors said that he had just a few months to live. He has been through surgery and radiation treatments which have slowed the progression of the cancer, but it was clear from the beginning that eventually he will die from this disease.

Please read this article for more background about Gary.

When I meet Gary I hope that I can encourage him, but his joyful outlook and his overcoming faith always result in me being encouraged instead. Today was no different. After we had our personal talk, I asked him a few questions. Here is what he had to say, transcribed as accurately as possible.

Don: I am here at Rise and Shine with Gary Morey having breakfast and some coffee and we are just going to talk about some of the things going on with him for the past year or so.

Gary: Hi. I’m Gary Morey with glioblastoma multiforme and enjoying it [laughs].

Don: Back in the fall you were at our church and you told us that you had two goals that you wanted to accomplish. One was to be there when your wife completed her degree, and the other was to vote against Hillary. Can you update us on how those are going?

Gary: That’s true. My wife did a great job, got her PhD and graduated May 10th. I thought I’d physically be in bad shape by then, but I was fine. I’ve never had any side affects from all the medications I take, all the x-rays I’ve had. So I was just a normal guy in the stands. And it looks like I’ll at least be around long enough for the Presidential election in November, so whoever the Democrats nominate, I’ll be there to vote against him. I guarantee you. Especially with who the Democrats are putting up now. At least I hope I’ll be around then. So that should work out.

Don: Can you tell me how having cancer has changed your perspective or your priorities?

Gary: Just knowing that my time to live will be shorter I want to make sure that everyone I know in the past, that they knew where I’m at, but also that I know where they are at. Because now I have the time to talk with them. And there has been two or three who have realized that I’m a person who is not going to be around forever, so they can talk with me about things that they would not even want to talk to their own wives about because I’m not going to go tell other people about the situation, so it was good to be of assistance in that way. So strengthening relationships from the past, but then also making new relationships along the way. In my new church, new hospitals, I got to meet new people and talk to them and be a proper witness. I have one neighbor who I am still working on. He’s had a difficult life, so I’m trying to keep him on my side and be a witness to him.

Don: How is your wife Janis doing?

Gary: She is doing really well. She just accepted the reality right away, as fast as any wife could. She immediately realized, and I did too, that this was not something that was just going to go away with a couple of pills. We realized what the facts were, that was a year ago. We immediately said, “Ok, Lord, where do we go now.” We were immediately looking for direction from Him. And he showed us very quickly. So she is doing great. So I joke with her that when I die she is going to marry some guy named Edgar. So I say, “Don’t go see Edgar yet!” So we can joke about things like that.

Don: I know that God has given you a heart for ministry to older people. A couple of years ago, you left Hulen Street to join a Church where you have more of a chance to minister to older people. I’m wondering if that experience has affected the way you deal with having terminal cancer.

Gary: A little bit. We younger people think of older people as just being on the edge. They’re dying off. And I’ve just been amazed that they are not dying off. I still keep in touch with Glen and Dorothy Elkin, and they are just as strong as ever. They still have a beautiful garden. I thought I had a good garden til I saw his, and he is twice the age that I am and he’s now using a walker, but he still somehow keeps a beautiful garden growing. When I went to my new church there are a lot of old people, and I thought there would be a lot of funerals, but there has not been one. I never thought mine would be the first one. So I learned that you can never write someone off or think that they are limited just because they are old or they have terminal cancer. If anything I admire them more. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of older people, and I keep thinking that I’ll be so sorry when that person passes away. No! They are an important part of the community, good neighbors, keep a clean house, they’re not noisy like some younger people. They are a good example for us, and we need that. And I wish we could get the teens and twentys to look to them like I do now instead of thinking that they are just old geezers. They are a crucial part of our society.

Don: I have a question that someone asked me once, and it kind of stumped me. Any answer that I could come up with seemed like a cop-out. So I wanted to ask for your perspective on this. There are two people who both have a life-threatening disease. They are both believers, both pray fervently to be healed. Their families pray hard, their churches pray for them unceasingly. One of them recovers and returns to health, and the other one dies. How can that be? How does God decide this one is going to live and this one is going to die? Does prayer really work?

Gary: I go back to certain scriptures that are very important. This one came to my mind right away when this happened. Isaiah 55: 8-11 because these scriptures end by saying that when My Word goes out, it will not return to me empty. That is the part that has always been so strong to me. In reality now, the first two verses: “My thoughts are different than your thoughts, my ways are different than your ways, just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.” And you have to understand that God’s ways are so vastly different. And why do certain people make it and others don’t? I don’t know. Part of it is understandable, what kinds of cancer do they have, some are easier to treat than others. You just have to understand that there are not many people cured of this kind. A lot of people take the right medicines and stay around longer, but eventually the cancer will get them. But I tell people you have to understand that the same God who makes us happy when someone is born is the same one who makes us happy when he brings us home to be with Him. He’s the same God, and he never says in the Bible that a long life is preferable or that a short life is bad. So any length of life that you have to live, just thank the Lord for it. Thank the Lord for being alive. Now I’m sure that it is very different when a child dies. We have to recognize that God is very consistent. He always tells you that I will be there for you. When Steven Curtis Chapman lost his five-year-old daughter God was there watching that little girl get run over in his driveway. Yep, He apparently was there. God is always there with us. Each of these people were Christians and we have to look at each one as an individual. We each have different cells, we each have different fingerprints, so we are all very very different, so why did these cells start growing in one person and not in another? Well, we are different people, we are sinful people. Both people can thank the Lord that he was there all along. You’ve got to have that confidence.

There are a lot of wacky books out there about healing and dying. The only decent one I have found is by Billy Graham. I think it is just called "Dying". Billy Graham is just an outstanding man. I always thought the rapture would come while he was still alive. Who knows, maybe it still will.

Don: Thanks. Like I said, when I tried to address those issues it sounded like a cop-out, because I’ve never been where you are, so it means a lot coming from you.

Gary: And we don’t want God to be under our control. We don’t want to know how God reacts. Oh, this is what God will do. That’s not the faith I would want to have. That’s a God I can control.
Don: That would make him a very small god, one who we could wrap our minds around or keep on a chain.

Gary: Oh, yes.

Don: In the Bible God promises that He works together in all things for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. How do you see that being true in your life?

Gary: In my life He’s been wonderful. He gave me warning that my life was coming to an end. That is wonderful. I had this horrible disease, but I’ve never had a bit of pain, I’m just like a normal person. I’ve had the chance to get in touch with all my past relationships. It has just been one thing after another. Situations where we get these bills, $70 thousand bills, and with our insurance, it brings it down to an amount that we can afford. My wife got a great job where she gets a higher salary, when my salary went down our income stayed the same. That is so rare, many people when they get this kind of cancer they just have a horrible time. Maybe its because I’ve avoided a lot of sinful situations. In my whole life I never had a beer, never had a cigarette, never messed around with other women, I think the Lord is saying hey, this is a result of living a good life. At least that’s what I believe. And I’ve always wanted to be a good witness. He has always been there for me.

Don: Someday when you stand before God, what one question would you like to ask Him?

Gary: How could He love us? He gives us all this wonderful direction in His Word, and we still sin against Him. How can that be? I’d like to hear it from His own lips. How can he do that? How does he constantly forgive us and still be there for us? Because I can love my wife, but there are still times when you’re not feeling like “I love you”. You want to get angry for a while first, and then shut up. God’s unconditional love is a mystery to me.

Don: A lot of people wonder about how a loving, all-powerful, good God allow pain and suffering and death and wars and all the bad stuff that goes on?

Gary: I have to go back to original sin, with Adam and Eve. If they had not taken advantage of that opportunity to sin against God we would not be in that situation now. We would be in those perfect bodies. But we took on that role of individual people, fallen people who could have anything happen to us, unfortunately its something that Adam and Eve got us into. Again you have to think of the Lord who allowed us to be born and say thank you for allowing us to be born. Thank you for having us in this country, because we could be in other places where it is not so good to live. You have to go back to His promise that he is always there. There is a verse I just recently found, Romans 12:12. “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.” I like that because it gets at what all those scriptures say. Be always joyful, and when things get tough, be patient, and the King James says “be in continuous prayer”. And you have to be that way because it just does not make sense. When you think about 9/11 and all those people getting incinerated, that is a day when everyone is going to be asking those questions. How? How? How? And it is hard to fall back on scripture on that day, but that is the world we live in now. The Lord is here, but he also lets people go against each other as they did on that day. But as far as my individual situation, I just thank the Lord that he allows me to be alive. And I thank the Lord for the people I know, and I hope that I can be a good witness on my way out. Because you are a witness to me. You are not weeping, feeling sorry for me, you are joyful. That is encouraging to me. So I just want to do all I can to be encouraging, to help out however I can. To be a good witness to everyone.

Don: My last question, is there a scripture that is special to you, that you would like to share with us?

Gary: Yes, it would have to be the Isaiah 55 passage. God’s ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. That’s why it is important, because God is so much bigger than we are. That is something we can fall back on. For my situation, they say I’ll lose my sight, I’ll have paralysis, that means death is coming. I need to fall back on that truth. It’s ok because he said that his ways are different. There is a reason that this is happening. There is a reason that I can’t see now. There is a reason that I can’t move. Ok, I can deal with that. He continually reminds us in scripture that he is always with us. I am very confident that He is right there with us, and He will help us in small ways along the way. Even if it is just to give me relief of pain, he will do that. I am confident He will be there. I just lean on Him 100%.

Don: As I talk with you I can see that your way of thinking is different from the way the world thinks, and your response to this disease is different. You have a joy and a peace, and I think that reflects God’s different way of thinking, and that encourages me.

Gary: And you have got to remember that this is not a sudden death. I think people in that situation deal with it in a way that is very very different. It is hard to talk to them, and I don’t expect them to fall back on this immediately. It is going to take some time for them to work through this, when death is a sudden thing. But when I know that death is coming, I need to prepare myself and take advantage of the opportunities.

Don: Thanks Gary, you are a great encouragement and a great witness.

I thank God for blessing me with good health. A few people are blessed to experience the miracle of healing and recovery. While I still believe that God could heal Gary if that was His will, Gary has experienced a different kind of miracle, not a bit less amazing than physical healing -- the faith to trust in God's presence and His goodness, in spite of not understanding all of the reasons, a heart which thanks God for each day of life, and the opportunity to turn any sitation into a chance to bring glory to God.

Drill here, drill now

Too much to bear

I can say with complete confidence that we are all very thankful that The Office star Rainn Wilson did not have a "wardrobe malfunction" as he presented an award at this year's MTV Movie Awards. Good taste and class have hit a new low.

Good for the goose

The Senate recently cast a late-night voice vote to privatize its money-losing food service operation.

This is clearly the wrong approach. Instead, they should nationalize the Senate restaurants and require every member and their staff to patronize these fine government-run facilities for every meal.

The operation has lost $18 million in the last 15 years while serving its relatively-wealthy clientèle, and immediately needs $250,000 in taxpayer cash just to make next month’s payroll, because the Senate failed to mandate participation.

Meanwhile, across Capitol Hill, the House food service operation pays the government $1.2 million annually from the profits of its popular restaurants. It was privatized in the 1980s.

We should not draw the conclusion that private enterprise works better than government, rather we need to boost taxes on the obscene windfall profits of the House restaurants to subsidize the Senate operation.

Pick the date

The "eggheads and African Americans" coalition is eagerly anticipating Hillary's departure from the race, but they may be premature. When do you think that Hillary will officially announce "I'm out, and I'm out to lose" as she quietly slinks back to New York to drown her sorrow in Canadian whiskey imported under the terms of NAFTA?

Reply to this post with your prediction of the date. If Hillary is still in the race after the date you pick, you are disqualified. Whoever picks the date exactly or overshoots by the smallest amount will win a fabulous prize: one "Audacity of Hype" bumper sticker to proudly display on your car.

Remember, Hillary is a fighter!

Dear Senator

Dear Senator Obama,

Now that you are back on the market, so to speak, having abandoned your church home of two decades to allow your friends to "worship in peace", I'd like to invite you to consider my church.

Let me tell you a little bit about it.

Senator, in my church we love and worship Jesus. We believe the Bible is the word of God. Our preachers faithfully proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Our people live out their faith in a variety of ways. We are committed to the mission of leading others to know Jesus in a life-changing way by turning our neighbors into friends, friends into family, and family into followers. We reach out with love, generosity, and compassion to those who are hurting or in need, whether they live down the street or around the world. We minister to children in our neighborhood, families experiencing a medical or financial crisis, inmates in prison, victims or natural disasters, orphans in Nicaragua, a family from Romania whose 4-year-old daughter is being treated for neuroblastoma, people in Belarus who want to learn English, and many more.

Senator Obama, if you love Jesus, and enjoy the fellowship of others who share your faith in Christ, then you and Michelle and the girls might feel at home here.

Of course, we're not perfect. We lack some of the features to which your family has become accustomed. For example, our pastors never talk about political candidates from the pulpit. There's not a whole lot of angry screaming -- in fact, none. No preacher here has ever called down God's condemnation upon our native land.

In fact, on Memorial Day and Independence Day and Veterans Day, we praise God that we live in a free land, thanks to the willing sacrifice of those who bled and died that this nation might live. We actually sing, from time to time, 'God Bless America', because it's a prayer to the one who has secured our liberty that he might guide us even in dark and troubling times.

We're Republicans. We're Democrats. We're Independents. We're political apathetics. We are people of all types and colors. We are Americans. Above all, we are people who love Jesus. Jesus , not race, is our common bond, the central focus of our church. Through Jesus, we have come to love others, even those with whom we disagree. We're happy that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1,2)

If you like liberation theology, at our church you get it, but it's not limited to the poor, or to any particular race, because "if the Son (Jesus) sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36) no matter what you look like or how much you earn.

So, Senator Obama, now that you're church shopping, why not stop by? You are always welcome.

For a man who's all about "change" this one might be refreshing.

Sincerely,

Don Dodson

A Modest Proposal

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of gender struggles.

Men of the world, it is time to cast off your chains of oppression and fight the tyranny which imposes its will upon you, denying your right to choose what to do with your own body. For far too long, the unenlightened forces opposed to choice have dictated what ought to be a personal, private decision. No man should be marginalized or treated as a second-class citizen for what he chooses to do with his own body.

Men, it is time to stand up for your innate right to rape! March! Chant! Take to the streets! Demand your rights!

Men, unite to overturn this unconstitutional law which infringes on our right to privacy. The government must not legislate morality. The state must not impose its religious views on others. Who are they to say what is right or wrong for me?

In the first third of a woman’s life, roughly up until her thirtieth birthday, a woman is not fully developed, either physically or mentally. During that time before she reaches full personhood, the state has no interest at all in regulating rape. She should be freely available to any rapist who chooses her. Once a woman reaches the age of thirty, her husband may decide to allow any rapist he wishes to have access to her. Without the husband’s permission, a rapist must show evidence of an urgent need for sexual release before raping a woman of this age. Of course, unmarried women have not reached full personhood and may be raped at any age. Beyond the age of sixty, in order to avoid emotional damage to the rapist, a woman may only be raped after placing a paper bag over her head.

If you don’t believe in rape, don’t do it!

Some will say that I am pro-rape, but that is not the case at all. I am pro-choice. I want rape to be safe, legal, and rare. Even though rape is currently illegal, it still occurs, but it is forced into the back alleys and shadows of society, where rapes are performed in unsanitary conditions which endanger the safety of the rapist. Once rape is legal and brought out into the open, we can take steps to assure that rapists are not injured by coat hanger rapes.

If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a penis?

In addition, we will have the opportunity to encourage men to seek alternatives to rape. For instance, they may decide to alternate between rape and some other outlet such as wife beating, masturbation, or sex with a hired partner.

The benefits of safe, legal rape do not end with the man. Women reap the rewards as well. It is well known that men know what is better for a woman than she knows herself. Without rape, a woman may live her life as a noncontributing drain on society, dependent on the productivity of men, without a quality lifestyle. A rapist is truly doing a woman a favor, in spite of the fact that she is not man enough to recognize it.

Oftentimes women will present irrational arguments against safe, legal rape. They are simply enemies of choice. If you are not a man and have never had the experience of being a rapist, then you simply can not relate to what these men are going through. The decision to rape is a deeply personal matter which often comes at a very difficult and emotional time in a man's life, and if you have never been in his shoes, you have no basis to judge his decision. Although we welcome women to support our cause, any woman who opposes legalized rape is not entitled to an opinion.

Men! You have a right to autonomy and self-determination! Demand your rights!

Be a voice for choice! Keep the US out of my black windowless van!

Men of all countries, unite!