Red's Rightings

Christianity and Western Society

2010-05-18T10:56:00.003-04:00

I've often wondered about how and why "western societies" were able to become so much more advanced than many of the surrounding cultures after the dark ages. Most historians in the west now tell us that it was European greed and exploitation that caused so many of the advances in science and industry that western societies enjoyed at the expense of other cultures.

I've often thought in terms of the Europeans taking advantage of more useful and plentiful natural resources than, say, those in Africa and the middle east at the time. But there are some interesting ideas outlined in this interview of Rodney Stark. Most of the story has to do with misconceptions about the Crusades, but I hadn't really thought about the impact of Christianity being the dominant religion in western society:

"Christianity was the basis of western civilization. When you look at western civilization and see what it has, it came from Christianity. The notion that somehow western science broke through against the resistance of religion is total nonsense. Without the religious background, there wouldn't be any science, because the fundamental notion that separated the West from everybody else was the notion that God is rational and created a rational universe, so there were rules out there to be discovered.

"Nobody else looked for the rules, because they didn't believe they were there to be found. They didn't believe that the world had been created in the same rational way. The marvelous thing is that these early Christian scientists, including Newton, believed God had created a rational world, went ahead and looked for the rules of that rational world -- and darned if they didn't find them. In an interesting sense, it was a scientific confirmation of the Christian religion."

With respect to Muslim societies, specifically, many of the aspects of their religious beliefs had the opposite impact on their development:

"On religious grounds, Muslim scientists would have faced many challenges. It was widely held theologically that the notion of physical law was blasphemous. The laws of science presumed to limit the power of Allah, and therefore they could not be true. Clocks and printing presses were prohibited for centuries on the grounds that they were somehow blasphemous.

"Implied in the notion of scientific law, Muslim theologians felt, was that Allah would not be free to do whatever he pleased, whenever he pleased. They did not imagine Allah as the Great Clockmaker. He does as he pleases. That creates two impediments. One is it basically declares science itself heretical. But second, and more important, it says that science is impossible. If the concept of scientific law is regarded as theologically contradictory, then there are no rules there to be found. So who is going to go looking for rules that do not exist?

"You have astrology all over the world, but scientific astronomy only really happened in Europe. You have alchemy all over the world, but it turned into chemistry only once -- in Europe. And so it goes. And that's why in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Europeans could sail around the world, when everyone else could only row around a "lake" like the Mediterranean.

"The most surprising discovery for Europe when the age of exploration began was not the discovery of the New World or the civilizations in the Americas. It was the fact that the whole rest of the world was so far behind them. They had rather assumed that China would be way ahead of them. But that wasn't the way it was."

I Like Beer

2010-05-18T10:35:00.002-04:00

Especially Guinness - both the draft and extra stout varieties. After seeing this video, I have even more reason to love this particular brew of the beverage Benjamin Franklin described as evidence of God's love for us.

Apparently, Arthur Guinness was a Christian, particularly influenced by John Wesley to use his status for good. I'll have to grab a copy of Stephen Mansfield's new book next time we're in Barnes and Noble.

I first saw the link to this video at Justin Taylor's blog, where he followed up some predictably silly comments from the Teetotaller crowd with an excellent post about Christian alcohol consumption. I have some sympathy for the position of total abstinence, being a recovering baptist, but have no use for those who try to claim that you can't be a Christian and drink the odd adult beverage. It's just not a position that can be supported by anyone who holds to Sola Scriptura.

He quotes D.A. Carson:

Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.

To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

He's Back

2010-03-30T09:27:00.005-04:00

Ok, so I've been extremely negligent in my blogging recently. I've been (allegedly) studying for the PE exam, coming up on April 16, and combining that with a new baby just doesn't leave much time for posting. Add in the depressing nature of events in the political and Liverpool Football Club worlds, and motivation has been low.

Of course, the events of the last few months have been building up what will be a rant of epic proportions on the nature and character of our "public servants" in Washington...whenever I have a few hours to formulate (and filter) all the disparate and oftentimes inappropriate thoughts bouncing around in my head, said rant will no doubt be allowed to escape onto the pages of this blog. It will be therapeutic, I'm sure. That is, after all, the main purpose of this blog (which is read mainly by sympathetic members of my family).

But for now, in light of Holy Week and a hope for maintaining my blood pressure at reasonable levels, I've decided to post a few links related to the Church.

First of all, Justin Taylor has a great series of posts all week following the historical events of Holy Week in Scripture. By the way, The Gospel Coalition blog has become one of my daily clicks.

A very interesting article turned up in the Christian Science Monitor about the recent surge of Calvinism in America. It's actually a great piece on the phenomenon I've written about before. I'm encouraged by the fact that more Christians are gravitating toward a faith that's based on solid doctrine, and into what I like to call "real" churches. The mega-church culture within American evangelicalism has produced far too many unserious churches, which in turn tend to produce self-centered believers, unprepared for anything other than Joel Osteen's promised prosperity, who couldn't begin to tell you what it is that they actually believe. Calvin believed in a church that took its role of proclaiming the Gospel and shepherding the flock seriously.

Today, his theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism's unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians – especially the young.

Twenty-something followers in the Presbyterian, Anglican, and independent evangelical churches are rallying around Calvinist, or Reformed, teaching. In the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant body, at least 10 percent of its pastors identify as Calvinist, while more than one-third of recent seminary graduates do.

I've been encouraged by the recent surge in college and grad types in our own church, and I can certainly identify with the desire for a serious church in increasingly troubling times. I continue to believe that early American Christianity's understandable and somewhat justified desire to get as far away as possible from Roman Catholicism lead to an overcompensation in certain areas of ecclesiology that was never intended by the Reformers.

But I also share Mike Pohlman's concern about the potential results of the "movement" becoming popular...

Faith Healing

2009-10-09T09:54:00.003-04:00

Another sad example of people misapplying the principles of Scripture.

On the last day of Kent Schaible's life, his parents and pastor intensely prayed over his 32-pound body, which, unbeknown to them, was ravaged by bacterial pneumonia. When the 2-year-old boy finally died at 9:30 p.m. Jan. 24 inside the family's Northeast Philadelphia home, the pastor called a funeral director to take the boy's remains to the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office.

At no time that day, nor in the week-and-a-half prior, did Herbert and Catherine Schaible seek medical treatment for their son despite his sore throat, congestion, liquid bowel movements, sleeplessness and trouble swallowing, Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said in court yesterday.

"All it would have taken is a simple visit to a doctor for antibiotics or Tylenol, maybe, to keep this child alive," she said during the couple's preliminary hearing.

After the two attorneys representing the Schaibles argued for their innocence, Municipal Judge Patrick Dugan held them for trial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.

Taking your child to the doctor is in no way a demonstration of a lack of faith. Unfortunately, this could've been avoided had this couple's pastor known anything at all about the way God works. God is active in this world. He is not a passive spectator watching everything that happens to us. He's also totally sovereign. Each event in our lives is part of his plan, but we also must realize that he has ordained that these events come to pass through secondary causes.

God chooses to use natural events and real people to accomplish his will here on earth. That doesn't mean supernatural things don't happen, but we have plenty of evidence that secondary causes are God's chosen means for getting things done. God installs the leader of this nation, but he uses the votes of real people to do so. In the same way, God is the great physician, but he heals people through the work of doctors, nurses, and advancements in medicine.

Unfortunately, this is just another example of the dangers in not having a strong grasp on doctrine and Biblical teaching.

More on Coral Ridge

2009-10-01T16:03:00.007-04:00

One of the issues surrounding the current schism within Coral Ridge PCA is the assertion by new pastor Tullian Tchividjian that politics should not be preached from the pulpit. This question of how involved church leaders, and pastors in particular, should be in local and national politics has interested me for some time. I'm a very opinionated and politically informed person. My initial tendency is always that the church should be actively involved in influencing the political realm at every level and in every way, but is that the Biblical view?

We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago in our officer training session, in which our pastor talked about what he called the traditional southern presbyterian view on the church and politics. It's traditionally been taught in churches like ours that the purpose of the Sunday morning worship service is, well, the worship of God; and that the pastor's priority is the exposition of the Word of God to the people. The southern presbyterian view is that it's the pastor's job to inform the people from the pulpit concerning the Biblical principles that govern every area of life - including public policy and political thought. It is then incumbent on the individual members of the church to go out and apply those principles to every aspect of their lives, and to the political and public policy debates. When church members get involved in the local school board, run for other public offices, and vote for candidates that align with Biblical principles as outlined from the pulpit on Sundays, the church is then indirectly, but effectively, influencing the political landscape.

I've always found it disturbing to hear pastors telling members which candidates to vote for in elections, and using their pulpits to endorse certain campaigns. It happens quite a lot in many of the black churches here in Macon, where a church service can resemble a political rally at times. (On a related note, the "reverend" Jeremiah Wright is coming to Macon this month to "preach" at St. Paul AME.) However, I also tend to think that we as Christians have a duty to be involved in our government and in the making of public policy.

So, is Tchividjian correct in steering Coral Ridge away from it's high profile association with the religious conservative movement under Dr. Kennedy? There is no question that Dr. Kennedy sought to directly shape the political landscape both through his preaching and related ministries. His sermons, which were aired on television and radio for years, would often take on legalized abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and the idea that America had strayed from its founding Christian principles. He was a member of the Moral Majority, and was constantly quoted as wanting to "reclaim America for Christ." Some have accused him of being a Dominionist - of wanting America to be ruled by Christians, according to Biblical Law - however, I don't see his teachings going to quite the extremes of Christian Reconstructionism.

Tchividjian, on the other hand, seems to fall more in line with the southern presbyterian model, and is certainly of the opinion that preaching should be expository in nature. While I have a tendency to enjoy hearing Dr. Kennedy calling America out, I also tend to think that preaching should be more focused on explaining the Scriptures. Don't get me wrong, the Bible has a lot to say about many of the hot button political issues of our day, and when a pastor is preaching from the whole of Scripture he should not be afraid to explain the truth on each of these issues. It's difficult to know where to draw the line.

I suppose my view is that the pulpit is the place for revealing God's will through his Word, and that pastors should stick to doing just that. If that means pointing out what the Bible says about a particular political issue, then so be it. But politics shouldn't be the dominant topic of discussion on Sunday mornings. On the other hand, we are called to change our culture, not withdraw from it, so it's up to us as members of the body of Christ to go out and apply the principles explained to us from the pulpit in our communities.

I'm seeing more and more of the younger generation of believers displaying an almost knee-jerk reaction against the evangelical church's association with the "Christian right." Unfortunately, I think it almost always seems to be an overreaction. So many of the leaders within the so-called "emergent" movement are so heavily focused on running away from the issues typically emphasized by traditional evangelicals like Dr. Kennedy, that they end up glossing over or totally leaving out the true Gospel, replacing it with just another warmed over version of the heresy of the social gospel. It's probably true that the younger crowd of believers these days would not respond well to Dr. Kennedy's brand of preaching. However, I hope that we don't go too far in our attempts to appeal to the surrounding culture.

I'm excited about Tchividjian and the possibilities he represents for moving our denomination into the future. I hope, and have every confidence, that he will remain true to the Word of God.

Coral Ridge Presbyterian

2009-10-01T14:20:00.005-04:00

It's difficult to watch what's happening at Dr. Kennedy's Coral Ridge Presbyterian, however it is very indicative of some of the issues bubbling under the surface within our denomination right now. So many of our churches, like our own FPC Macon, are finding it very difficult to come to grips with what it means to be relevant while also remaining faithful.

I'm only just now learning about the situation at Coral Ridge, but the news today that 2 elders have resigned from the session of this very influential church is disturbing and sad. After reading some of the back-story, it sounds like it's the typical situation that more and more conservative, traditional evangelical churches are starting to have to face these days: the culture has changed, and the younger generation of pastors wants to change the ways we are reaching it.

A while back, after the death of D. James Kennedy - a man I admired greatly - the church voted by a wide margin to offer the post of senior pastor of Coral Ridge to Billy Graham's grandson, Tullian Tchividjian. Tchividjian had been the pastor of New City Church - a smaller congregation of mostly younger people, which he merged with the existing congregation of Coral Ridge. It sounds like he also brought in his own leadership team, replacing many long-time staff. Evidently, Tchividjian also decided that wearing a robe while preaching was not necessary (I know it seems silly, but this has been quite the controversy in our denomination. We had the same little outburst within our congregation when our head pastor started wearing a suit several years ago), and also has stopped what he calls "preaching politics from the pulpit." Dr. Kennedy was a founding member of the Moral Majority, and one of the leading voices in the religious conservative movement. More on that later. Other changes included moving toward a more contemporary worship service (the good ole worship wars - also a big issue within the PCA right now), and modifications to evangelism and other popular programs.

Evidently, a group of 6 influential church members, including Dr. Kennedy's daughter, took advantage of the unrest these changes were causing and began organizing resistance to Tchividjian. After writing letters to the congregation and circulating a petition suggesting he be fired, Tchividjian had the members banned from the premises. It seems a bit harsh, and it certainly offended my innate Baptist congregational sensibilities - at least initially. But if this was done in accordance with the requirements for church discipline, as laid out in our Book of Church Order, then the case could certainly be made that they were causing disunity within the congregation and refusing to submit to the authority of the session. About a month later, after nearly 400 members had petitioned for a vote on Tchividjian's removal, the church held a congregational vote which overwhelmingly confirmed support for the new pastor.

Now, we obviously don't know all the details, but my guess is that Coral Ridge had a significant portion of long-term, probably older members, who bristled at the changes that their new pastor started making. I can't speak to the specifics of what happened, but it's possible that TT (I can't keep typing that name over and over again) may have tried to institute these changes a little too quickly. I know that a similar fallout would probably occur if some of these same changes were made all at once in our church. I can sympathize with some of the long term members who have supported the church for years, both financially and with their time, only to see these "young whippersnappers" come in and take over, a-changing everything they worked so hard to establish. However, if these changes were made with the approval of the session, as long as they were acting within the guidelines of our constitution and the Scriptures, then I see little room for argument.

Perhaps the new leadership didn't handle everything as well as they could have, but it's also true, at least according to TT, that many of the dissidents didn't follow the Biblical model of confronting fellow believers. In this Christianity Today interview, TT suggests that his critics should've come first to him personally with their grievances, as is outlined in Matthew 18. Instead, and this is still according to TT, they immediately began undermining him and the church leadership among the congregation. If this is in fact true, then I have to say that he was probably justified in breaking off communion with these members.

This just illustrates that even those churches who have a strict set of guidelines for the government of the church will still have to deal with the fact that pastors, elders and members are always going to be sinful, fallen people. These kinds of problems will always exist within the church, as long as different people hold different views about what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, this particular conflict is being played out in front of the entire nation, and is not exactly helping win people to Christ. Many former members of Coral Ridge have already splintered to form a new church, and it looks like there is little hope for reconciliation.

I have to say that my initial reaction to what I've learned is that Coral Ridge's new pastor and session have acted correctly in what is a very unfortunate conflict. I'm sure there are things they wish they'd done differently, but my guess is that Tchividjian has the best interests of this congregation at heart, and is implementing what he thinks is the best plan for reaching people for the Gospel. Changes of this nature will always create schism within such a traditional, conservative denomination; but perhaps they are necessary for reaching the current culture.

The Great Debate: Women in the Church

2009-09-30T10:55:00.004-04:00

Following in the vein of yesterday's post about our church and it's structure, I'd like to comment briefly on a very hot topic within Christendom right now: what should be the role of women in the church? There's a nice little non-theological overview of this debate here. By way of summary, this is how the author, Allen Yeh, describes the two sides of this issue:

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism is often a hot-button issue amongst evangelical Christians. To define these briefly, Complementarianism is the theological position that men and women are created differently and correspondingly should have different roles—i.e. men and women are not inherently unequal, but their differences should lead to different roles which complement each other. Egalitarianism is the position that men and women are equal and thus can have interchangeable roles.

Our denomination recently addressed this issue at General Assembly, where a debate was held between two of our most respected pastors, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan, and Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian in Jackson, MS.

Now, it says a lot about our denomination that this debate was very limited in it's scope. The PCA is pretty uniform in its complimentarian view. The debate, and the subsequent vote of the General Assembly, was over whether PCA churches should be permitted to "appoint" deaconesses, or female deacons. Note that the word "ordain" is very carefully avoided. The issue of whether women should be in authoritative or teaching roles is not even in question. While I don't see this as an issue of terrible importance, I do tend to fall on the side of complimentarianism. I just don't think you can get past the unequivocal statement by Paul in I Timothy 2:12, even if, as Yeh suggests, you look at the whole canon of Scripture.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is about as clear as it gets. And despite the protestations of many an egalitarian, no other verse in Scripture contradicts this view. The most common verses cited have to do with inferences that women are expected to prophesy (I Cor. 11:4-6), and examples of women serving (perhaps as deaconesses - see Acts 6) in the early church. However, prophesying (which I believe has ceased anyway with the death of the apostles, at least in terms of new special revelation) and serving as deaconesses is still a far cry from teaching or holding positions of authority. The office of deacon is one of service, not of rule.

I'm not even going to get into the defenses of the egalitarian view which are not based on Scripture. I had a Christianity professor in college whose defense of this view consisted of "Well, women in leadership roles would not have been accepted by the culture of that day, so that is why Paul prohibited it. Women are now accepted by our culture as equal to men, so this no longer applies." Such an argument is completely without merit. You could use the same logic for any number of Biblical commands. What happens when society accepts adultery as the norm, or any other practice prohibited in Scripture? Do we throw them out as well? Where do we draw the line?

Our pastor does an excellent job of explaining our view on this every time it comes up. This position does not come out of any view that holds women to be inferior in any way to men. In fact, it is often recognized that many women have better skills than men in any number of areas. It is simply a matter of being faithful to Scripture, and not basing any interpretation of God's Word on man's limited understanding and logic; and certainly not on the prevailing winds of current cultural norms.

In terms of the deaconess debate, I'm a little ambivalent. The complementarian view certainly does not prohibit women from being a vital part of the church ministry. In fact, Calvin himself encouraged churches to appoint women to help the diaconate in their ministry of service. Whether we call them a "Deaconess" or not really doesn't matter to me. I have tremendous respect for both Keller and Duncan, and appreciate their willingness to have an open discussion. I also appreciate our denomination's continued (and increasingly unpopular) stance on a difficult issue.

Praise for the PCA

2009-09-28T15:16:00.003-04:00

Over the past 6 weeks I've been through an officer training course in our church, which is part of the path toward ordination as a deacon. The class has met each week, on Sunday afternoons, and has been a surprisingly thorough examination of everything from our specific denomination's system of government to our strongly held doctrine and theology. For a lot of evangelicals in this part of the world, the fact that we require officers to complete a fairly rigorous course of study, including both written and oral examinations, just to become a deacon or elder seems pretty extreme.

Growing up in the Southern Baptist tradition, all this stuff would've seemed downright "catholic" to me about 15 years ago. We actually have a constitution consisting of a book of church order and an exhaustive declaration of our system of beliefs in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The church itself has a very specific form of government, which was just totally foreign to someone coming from a congregationally governed church background. Of course, I've come to believe that this is the Biblically correct model for a church - otherwise I wouldn't be here - but what caused such a severe change?

Well, I pretty much just read the Bible with an eye for what it teaches about the church, and came to the conclusion that the presbyterian form of church government most closely matches those teachings. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I'm an engineer and am naturally drawn to such a well structured and strictly governed organization as the Presbyterian Church in America. The Book of Church Order reminds me of a design specification for the construction projects I work on daily, and from what I can see, makes things so much easier on the leadership of the church. Disagreements over certain teachings, and difficult decisions that are made by pastors are not backed up merely by the individual pastor's opinions, but are shown to be either in or out of line with the accepted church position.

Some would argue that this adds to the requirements of Scripture, but that is only the case if the church's position is not thoroughly backed up by the Scriptures themselves. And all creeds, confessions, and similar documents must always be viewed as subject and subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Word of God. I've learned an incredible amount in the last 6 weeks, and am encouraged by our church's commitment to Biblical leadership and government. I wish more churches would take it as seriously as the PCA obviously does.

Change

2009-09-28T15:00:00.003-04:00

It's been entirely too long since I posted anything on this blog, and that's due in large part to some pretty serious change happening in our family. After 11 years of being a family of 3, on September 2, we became a family of 4 with the birth of our new daughter Ellie. After spending many months getting the nursery and house ready for a new baby, our preparations were cut a bit short by little Ellie's arrival 4 weeks early.

She was born 5 lbs 3 oz, 18.5 inches long. After several extra days in the hospital trying to get little Ellie to eat and gain weight, we finally came home to a very different family dynamic. We'd become very used to having a big kid who can take care of herself, and had really forgotten what it was like to have a helpless little baby. Very little sleep is being had in our home at the moment, but it really is a lot of fun!

Augustine on Creation

2009-05-08T14:07:00.003-04:00

I came across a very interesting article today, written in honor of the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, at Christianity Today's website. The article is written by Alister McGrath, and deals with Augustine's views on the creation account in Genesis.

After reading through Augustine's Confessions recently, I noticed that one of the major hang-ups he had in fully embracing Christianity was a difficulty in believing the "stories" in Genesis. It was a common belief among the intellectual elite of that age (as is certainly, and more severely, the case in our own time) that the Biblical account of creation was simply ridiculous and illogical. There is a lot of evidence that Augustine struggled with the creation account for much of his life, and this article helps to illuminate the results of that struggle - a view on creation that I found very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was still more than a millenium away.

I've done quite a bit of study relating to the various current views on the creation narrative, and have become much more open to alternatives to the Young Earth Creationism that I have always embraced. For one thing, many other men who have my utmost respect, and who are very orthodox in their theology, have also shown a willingness to accept the idea that the literal, six 24 hour day creation account may not be the only Biblically accurate interpretation. My own reading of the Genesis account has also led me to be willing to entertain the idea that the six "days" may or may not have been literal 24 hour periods (also known as the "Day-Age Theory").

One thing that I think is very important in this line of thinking is that it was not science that led me to this belief. In other words, I am not trying to fit the Bible into a man-made box by trying to explain the creation account based on what man's current "knowledge" about science tells us. The earth very well may be billions of years old - I don't know. I also do not believe that our current system of carbon dating is as reliable as some "experts" would have us believe. It's important to make the distinction that it is my reading of Scripture, and my study of other respected individuals' writings on the subject of the original language, that has led me to my current postion.

This is not how I usually work. My default position on Scripture is to interpret what I read in the most simple and literal terms, but also in the context of the rest of the Bible. I usually fall back on the idea that we are much safer erring on the side of caution, and not leaving the Bible open to erroneous views that are based only on manmade (hence, flawed and limited) ideas. I firmly believe that the accounts in the Old Testament - all the stories told to me in my childhood about Jonah, Joshua, Moses, and others - are descriptive of real life events that actually happened in time and space. So it's a pretty big leap for me to be willing to say, in a way, that the account in Genesis is, just maybe, not to be taken literally.

So does this mean that I'm stepping outside of long-held orthodox belief. Well, not necessarily. Upon reading this article about Augustine's views on the subject, I find myself encouraged by the fact that he drew some of the same conclusions from Scripture.

Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God's creation is always subject to God's sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth.

Now Augustine is certianly not the only source of knowledge on this subject, and he could very easily be totally wrong. But, I find it very encouraging that he struggled with these very same issues, and that he was willing to admit this uncertainty. Just to be clear, I still believe in the historicity of God's creation of the earth and everything in it - including, as is discussed elsewhere in the article, God's creation of time itself - as well as the real events of The Fall, the flood, and the other events described in Genesis. You certainly won't find me writing here about my belief that the story of Adam and Eve is really just a parable, meant to warn us of our tendencies to stray from God. I just find myself more open to a slightly different translation of the description of a series of events that are well beyond our ability to comprehend.

Macon's Tea Party

2009-04-15T15:00:00.004-04:00

I spent about an hour this afternoon standing in a small park directly across from Macon City Hall, listening to some local leaders talk about the sorry state of affairs in Washington. In between Chris Kroc jumping around shrieking into a bullhorn, State Reps. Allen Peake, Tony Sellier, insurance commisioner John Oxendine, and bloggers Erick Erickson and Jeff Emmanuel gave some great speeches to a fairly raucous (well, as raucous as a bunch of Republicans can be) crowd.

This was just one of dozens of Tea Party protests taking place all over the state today. I was surprised by the number of people that turned out to show opposition to the way our government is spending our money. There were easily 300 to 400 people filling up the square, many waving signs that expressed their disgust with a tax system that punishes success and rewards failure.

It was interesting to see these people fired up over something. The vast majority of them were people who don't usually make time for protesting. I've always said that conservatives don't make themselves heard as much as liberals because we generally have jobs, families, and other responsibilities that take up most of our time. Most of us just want to get our heads down and get on with our jobs, making a living for our families, so we have little time for protesting even many of those things we feel strongly about. But when the leaders in Washington are preaching from on high about our duty to make sacrifices in this difficult economy, while refusing to make any cuts to the wasteful, inept, and out-of-control spending spree that is government...well, it just pisses us off.

It's good to see people waking up and expressing their opinions, but it won't be enough to wave a sign and yell Nobama! And we certainly can't use the old liberal method of subverting the political process by getting sympathetic activist judges to hand down favorable decrees on our behalf. We have to use the system as it was designed by our founders. If we believe Obama's policies to be dangerous, we have to persuade our friends and family using sound arguments and facts. We have to convince the American people that government can't do for us what we can do for ourselves. In fact, government can't really do anything well. When people start to realize that true freedom means a government that lets people keep their money as well as their rights, and allows everyone an equal opportunity at success, then we'll be able enact real "change we can believe in."

Good Friday

2009-04-10T09:55:00.004-04:00

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

-Isaac Watts, 1707

If You Don't Read Anything Else Today...

2009-04-09T09:07:00.004-04:00

Read this. Just a little perspective for those Americans who think that our wonderful new president's socialism is just what this country needs. Seriously, go and read the whole thing, but here's a little taste:

"So to The Vilified Rich, I beg you now: do for the rest of the country what my friend did for me… do for us what we are incapable of doing for ourselves. Break us of this addiction to the generosity of others. Just go away for a while, voluntarily, and leave the rest of us to look around and wonder where all the money and the jobs went. It will be painful, and it will be bitter, and our rage will be a terrible thing to see. But then, either we will get better, or we won’t. All will depend on whether or not we still feel the shame, and find the courage, to recover for ourselves the mastery over our own lives that once existed for all Americans, before you few despicable rich people came and started paying for more than half of everything. Which, as is obvious now, was not nearly enough.

If we can break this fever, then you can come back with your jobs and your capital and your vision and your wealth, which was generated by producing something large numbers of people found worth paying for. But go now, while you still love America enough to want to come back some day. Because if you don’t shut this thing down, and soon, the Bergs and Obamas will take and take and take from you until you never want to see this Godforsaken land again."

Harold and Kumar Go to Washington

2009-04-08T11:06:00.004-04:00

Sans Harold. This is just priceless. Kumar is getting an actual job in our government. An actor...is going to work for President Obama...an actor. Well, I suppose he's every bit as qualified for his new position as our president was when he was elected.

Ladies and gentlemen, taxpayers, meet your new "Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Liason." You gotta love this president's judgement.

Unions

2009-04-06T10:16:00.003-04:00

We have all been recently exposed to what happens to otherwise solid companies when they refuse to fight back against the destructive forces of unionized labor. General Motors' current march towards death, albeit slowed by a president and congress literally owned by Big Labor, can be directly linked to the problems associated with the corrupt, inefficient world of unions.

After several years in the construction industry, much of it in the industrial field, I've seen first hand what goes on in facilities saddled with the burden of unionization. I've always held that labor unions serve no purpose in today's society, save to drive up the cost of production in whatever industry they infest. And yet, in the wake of the disaster that is the Big Three, even after the blatant slap in the face that we've all received as a nation, we're still not getting the point.

We show outrage over a few executives getting big bonuses in spite of their own failures, and yet we could care less about the UAW refusing to give any concessions in order to prevent the failure of the companies they have leached dry over the years. Where is our president's haughty condescension with respect to this equally outrageous display of idiocy? Isn't GM getting taxpayer dollars to stay afloat? And yet the UAW wants their members to keep getting paid the same ludicrous wages that contributed to this problem in the first place. With OUR money!!!

There's a great article today in what's quickly becoming one of my favorite new websites, The New Ledger. The always knowledgeable Francis Cianfrocca - aka, Blackhedd at Redstate - is a regular contributor, and I never miss his insight into the financial world. Today's article explains why the UAW will end up finishing what they started in the destruction of General Motors.

Spring Break

2009-04-06T10:01:00.003-04:00

After a nice relaxing time on the island, it's back to work this week. It'd been a year since I last visited the beaches of Amelia Island, and I'd forgotten how much I liked it. My beach trips usually consist of as much reading as possible, as I don't seem to get much chance to read any other time. This trip I decided to tackle something I've wanted to read for a long time: Augustine's Confessions.

I wanted to take it slow, and absorb as much as possible from this ancient text, and I can honestly say that it has been an excellent use of vacation time. I got through the first 5 books during the week we were there, and am working my way through the rest now. This is a work that every Christian should read at some time in their lives. I hope to post some of my thoughts on each book in the coming weeks.

Obama's Teleprompter Dependence

2009-03-19T12:33:00.002-04:00

Much has been written about our new articulate president's heavy reliance on a teleprompter. Anyone who has paid any attention to our president over the last year has noticed that he struggles mightily when speaking extemporaneously. All of his "soaring rhetorical masterpieces", which have sent thrills up the legs of the most objective of journalists were the product of his speaking from a teleprompter.

Rush has latched onto this, quite hysterically, giving the teleprompter status as a "key player" in Washington these days - correctly stating that president Obama says whatever his little friend tells him to say...literally.

Someone has now come up with another brilliant play on Obama's relationship with his security blanket, starting a blog supposedly written by the teleprompter itself. The result is just classic.

Back to Basics

2009-03-17T13:40:00.004-04:00

I heard last week that something called "The New Calvinism" made Time Magazine's list of 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now, and while blogging has taken a back seat in the last few weeks, I simply have to comment on this. Apparently, Reformed Theology is making enough of a comeback to rank in the top 3 of world-changing ideology. The article is very interesting, and confirms some trends that others have noticed in the last few years. The more mainline protestant churches (United Methodist, Presbyterian USA, etc.) are shrinking, while more and more young people are flocking to the more orthodox traditions.

The New York Times recently published an article about the uptick in attendance at churches because of the recession. They also note a study which found that between 1968 and 2004, attendance at "evangelical churches" increased as much as 50%, while mainline churches continued their decline, albeit more slowly, during times of economic recession.

It's no surprise to me at all, especially given the events of the last 12 months. As we Americans (and consequently the rest of the world) are forced out of the comfortably insulated prosperity that we've enjoyed for so long, more and more of us are searching for something real. It's easy to go to a church that simply tells you what you want to hear, or listen to a pastor that offers self-help psychology week after week, as long as life outside of church is just peachy. But let someone experience the threat of losing their job/home/retirement, and life here on earth just doesn't cut it anymore. All of a sudden, we want to be reassured that this life isn't what it's all about.

It also becomes more important (at least in our little minds) to be sure in our faith once the here and now can't satisfy us completely. Of course, this phenomenon will only reinforce the already prevalent mentality among so many who think Christians to be weak-minded simpletons who use religion and faith as a crutch to deal with life's problems. The simple truth is that all of us continue to struggle with worry and despair over these things, we just have a better, though still very limited perspective of what it all means. We have the assurance that all things work together for good, for those who are part of God's family.

I'm encouraged that more young folks are turning to the reformed tradition - I count myself among that group - as it shows a hunger for truth, and a desire to get back to the foundational tenets of Christianity. So much of evangelicalism these days is all about trying to relate to society on their terms. We have to sugar-coat our theology to get the hip, postmodern (whatever that means) generation to pay attention. Well, frankly I'm not much for putting God, or the Gospel, in a box. The Bible is pretty clear on the power of the Gospel - all by itself, without any help from us. That's one of the benefits of good theology: an accurate understanding of how the Bible says God works.

I hope that more and more churches will notice this trend of believers demanding more from their religious leadership, and focus more on ensuring their members get sound teaching and understanding about what they believe and why.

Reaping What You Sow

2009-02-18T09:02:00.005-05:00

This is what happens when I don't post often enough to adequately vent...long, incoherent rants. I've got to start posting more frequently.

(By the way, the picture at right is the controversial cartoon that was published in the NY Post. All the typically ignorant, politically correct usual suspects jumped all over this as racist, even though it's patently obvious that the monkey represents congress, not our new untouchable savior.)

Anyway, it seems our new leadership in Washington is off to a wonderful start - if you're one of the many in this country who believe the government is there to take care of your every need. Of course, the simple fact is that most people in this country can't even be bothered to vote, much less pay attention to what happens in between elections. Then again, if everyone paid as much attention as I do, we'd all have high blood pressure and life-threatening levels of stress.

So what's the big deal about this so-called stimulus package our messiah has just rammed through congress, and why are so many folks up in arms? Unfortunately, our new president and his misguided cohorts in congress have, in less than a month, managed to saddle our grandchildren with several trillion dollars in debt, all for a program that most agree will do very little to solve the actual problems our economy is facing. The stimulus bill is a perfect picture of what's wrong with Washington and the majority of the pathetic excuses for representatives we send to do our bidding there.

The overall goal of this type of policy is to increase spending in order to prop up our shrinking economy. I'm no expert on finance, but I've read enough to understand that our GDP has recently begun to shrink. Keynesian economic policy, to which many of our new leaders adhere, is basically the opposite of supply-side economics. Most of us understand the idea that our economy is based on the rules of supply and demand. When supply increases, demand decreases, and vice versa.

In Keynesian policy, the idea is to use government to artificially increase demand. The average consumer in the free market, during times of economic trouble, stops spending money. It's just a natural reaction. When folks start losing their jobs and companies begin to lay off, we all tighten our belts. This of course only compounds the problem, as our economy is based on consumers buying and spending. In other words, demand shrinks because we all want to play it safe and build our savings back up during a recession. Our new leaders want to use the government to push demand back up.

The idea, basically, is to borrow money from China and other large nations to build roads and bridges, government buildings, and on and on. This will create jobs for people who are out of work, who will then go spend their new salary on cars, houses, etc. The only problem with this idea is that it doesn't solve the financial problems that got us to this point in the first place. All this plan will do is give a bunch of folks some temporary work and artificially shrink our unemployment rate for a while. For more discussion on what's really wrong with our economy, and why this won't work, go here.

At this point, I'm not really interested in whether this plan will work or not. I honestly don't think it will, but the biggest issue I see right now is the way in which this bill was passed, and the utterly ridiculous amount of completely unrelated nonsense that was included in the final product. President Obama revealed himself to be a liar when it comes to many of his campaign promises, and no one is calling him on it. We were all led to believe that this man would transcend partisanship. He would be willing to include ideas from both sides of the aisle, and would lead us into a new era of open and transparent government. So much for that nonsense.

President Obama missed an opportunity to show us all that he would in fact keep his promises to be a new kind of leader. This bill was rammed through congress without any debate over it's merits, without any input from republican lawmakers, and without anyone even having READ IT! He simply turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who promptly shut out everyone with an "R" behind their names, and proceeded to draft a bill that includes every liberal pet project that has ever been dreamed up. Our president made a good show of listening to alternative ideas, but made it pretty obvious that he never intended to actually take any of them seriously. "I won." How very bipartisan.

I won't even get into the amount of idiotic, wasteful spending included in this bill because I happen to have a real job and it would take weeks, but the main point that needs to be made is that this entire process just stinks. Our so-called messiah has shown himself to be a liar and a coward. If he had wanted to show us that he's a new kind of leader, he would've insisted that all of the waste and unrelated nonsense be taken out of the bill. Instead, he goes into full campaign mode, traveling the country to convice us all that the sky is falling. Our new leaders, after accusing the Bush administration of using fear to advance their agenda, are fomenting and encouraging panic surrounding the recession in order to advance their own agenda.

President Obama, our great deliverer, is taking advantage of the crisis in order to enact legislation that Americans, in ordinary times, would never tolerate. No debate, no review, and no alternative opinions allowed. I'm not surprised at all. Democrats have been abusing the ignorance and apathy of the average American for decades. Why should this guy be any different?

Well done America. Excellent choice.

Here We Go...

2009-02-02T09:02:00.004-05:00

Anyone else concerned about our nation's slow but steady drift toward European socialism needs to read this lovely little article from The Times in England. As a fan of English Premier League football (soccer for you unenlightened savages) I pay more attention to British culture than most Americans, and I notice that a lot of our fads come from across the pond. It's all the rage in American liberal circles to aspire to the kind of progressive multicultural, politically correct, morally vapid, eco-nutcase mentality that has taken over the ruling class in England.

So what's next? Culling kids, apparently.

"Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
"Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population."

Oh, the Hypocrisy!

2009-01-30T14:22:00.004-05:00

While trying not to laugh at Obama’s righteous indignation over the exorbitant bonuses paid out to Wall Street executives this month, I noticed a very curious, though not surprising irony. Now, don’t misunderstand. I don’t particularly like the fact that these companies, which have received billions of dollars in federal bailout money, are paying out ridiculous bonuses to their employees. In light of the fact that bonuses are usually given to reflect a high level of performance in one’s industry, it’s more than a little idiotic to hand out six-figure awards to folks who just lost their clients billions of dollars in investments.

After the year all of us have had, watching our investments plummet, I can understand how the average 401k owner might feel when he or she hears about their broker getting a new Porsche. I would say that this is supposed to be a free-market economy, where the government has no business telling private companies what to do with their own money, but then this isn’t their own money, is it? And it’s debatable at best whether or not this is a free market economy any more. Behold, the dangers of accepting government intervention.

But regardless of your opinions on whether our new president’s outrage is indeed righteous or not, you can’t help but admire the arrogant hypocrisy that is evident in our great messiah’s lack of an equal amount of outrage over the behavior of the UAW. Last time I checked, these geniuses plan to demand that their union members keep getting paid the ridiculous wages, an average of over $70 an hour including benefits, that got General Motors into this mess to begin with. And what will General Motors be using to maintain this level of remuneration? Well it’s patently obvious that they can’t sustain it on their own, so it’ll be the bailout money provided by you and I that allows UAW members to keep drawing a salary completely out of proportion to their labor.

Where’s the outrage over that? Why should Wall Streeters have to change their excessive ways, when the UAW is still forcing exorbitant wages out of GM, Ford, and Chrysler? Apparently, it’s okay for Big Labor to take a government-funded bailout and use it for disproportionate compensation, but not Wall Street. Does that make as much sense to you as it does to me? Well, it makes perfect sense when you realize the Big Labor unions spent millions upon millions to help put Barack Obama in the White House.

They own him. He’s their bitch.

(You know, I'll be in the market for a car sometime in the next few months. Better believe it won't be a product of GM. In fact, I'm liking Toyota more and more these days. Buy non-union.)

8th District Conservatives: Wake Up!

2009-01-29T09:19:00.005-05:00

We received yet more proof yesterday that our so-called conservative democrat congressman, Jim Marshall, is in fact nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Congressman Marshall's vote for the disgrace that has been labelled a stimulus package is not at all surprising to those of us who have followed his career closely. After campaigning as a conservative - a man who was supposedly praised by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy - and winning the votes of many within the 8th congressional district who normally vote Republican, Marshall has shown his true colors at the very first opportunity.

Fiscal responsibility is a hallmark of the conservative mentality. Smaller, less intrusive government, and the reigning in of irresponsible spending on entitlement programs are the bedrock of any truly conservative philosophy. And yet our "conservative" congressman has cast his vote for a bill that is the very antithesis of fiscal responsibility and limited government. The so-called stimulus bill is indicative of our new president's governing philosophy, and Representative Marshall's support for this legislation reveals his true instincts toward government as the solution to all of our problems.

Our new leadership in Washington has signalled that their agenda will be one of growing government, and using tax dollars to spend our way out of this economic mess. Whether you believe that to be an effective way to bring about economic recovery is another matter entirely, but it is beyond doubt that this mentality is as far from conservatism as one can get. As Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution, but in most cases it is the very root of our problems. Jim Marshall has shown himself to be yet another politician who says what he needs to say to get elected, and then does the opposite when he gets to Washington. Wake up conservatives, and stop sending this liberal to congress.

Senator Oprah

2009-01-26T09:43:00.003-05:00

This really made my day. As if we don't have enough proof already that you don't have to be qualified in, well, anything to be a Democrat politician (and apparently president), we find out that Oprah was actually considered as a replacement for Barack Obama in the Senate.

The United States Senate.

Oprah.

wow.

It's All On You, Donkey

2009-01-26T09:06:00.004-05:00

We're about to see exactly what happens when liberal ideology is put into practice. President Obama, the Democratic Congress, and their cheerleaders in the press are about to have to put up or shut up. For eight years they've all railed against everything the GOP has done. Offering plenty of criticism, but not one actual alternative solution to any of the problems we face.

During his campaign, we were led to believe that Obama would be a transformative leader - one who brought new ideas, and a new kind of leadership, to the running of our nation. Well, just as some of us knew all along, we are going to get nothing of the sort. Every solution offered to date is nothing more than old-school liberalism, and just like in years past, it's going to fail.

Oh, the president is making a good show of listening to alternative ideas, but don't expect him to do anything other than try and spend his way out of this recession. It's the typical democrat response to any problem: throw more money at it, put more inept bureaucrats in charge of it, let Nanny government kiss-it-make-it-better. Just like FDR's New Deal nonsense, it won't do anything other than saddle our grandchildren with ridiculous debt, and permanently enhance the government's intrusion into our lives.

Our president's so-called stimulus package is nothing short of a joke. It will do nothing more than mask the problems within the financial sector, but more importantly, it will purchase many more loyal Democrat voters. If he gets his way, a significant majority of Americans will no longer pay taxes, but will reap unprecedented benefits from the government. Those who achieve success will be paying for those who don't bother. Joe the Plumber was dead on - if this isn't redistribution of wealth, then I don't know what is.

And now, our illustrious joke of a Speaker, Pelosi, has decided that government-provided contraception is the way to stimulate our economy. I'm really at a loss for words here. All I can say is, this is what you asked for, America. We're reaping the results of all the government-educated, ignorant, lazy fools in the voter pool, and it isn't going to be pretty.

The Post Racial President?

2009-01-21T13:16:00.003-05:00

I realize that the "Reverend" Joseph Lowery is an old man, who's probably getting a little senile. He may even have been the subject of some cruel treatment at the hands of white folks some forty years ago. But his "prayer" yesterday was pretty insulting, not to mention incredibly ignorant. Let's point out the already remarkably obvious irony in this situation:

This man is supposed to be saying a prayer at the inauguration of the nation's first black president. A president put in office by a majority white electorate, and he's "praying" that the Lord "help us to work for that day when...white will embrace what is right." Wow. Either he had no idea where he was, or he's so full of hate that he can't think straight.

Of course, there is another explanation. People like this so-called reverend, including Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wrong, have no intention of giving up their positions of power - positions secured by spreading and manufacturing hatred and division - just because the rest of us have moved beyond racial differences. And some of you silly people probably thought this election would mean the end of race baiting.

No Rest for the Depressed

2009-01-21T08:44:00.003-05:00

Ok, so I'm not really depressed, but it has been difficult lately to find the motivation to put my thoughts into words. The vomit-inducing cries of hope and change, coupled with the sudden swell of patriotism from the same folks who professed outright hatred for their country until yesterday, has dampened my enthusiasm somewhat. Thankfully, I'm beginning to come out of the fog.

I suppose I can find some satisfaction in the idea that millions of naive Obamanuts are waking up this morning only to find that Santa didn't come last night, and they still have to pay their mortgages and work for a living. It's also kinda nice to be able to sit and watch the other side screw things up for a while. I can't help but realize, however, that all these screw-ups are going to have big ramifications for me and my family. So, as a tribute to all those normally center-right leaners who thought we just needed change for the sake of change, let's look at what we can expect from Democrat leadership over the next few years:

If you are currently succesful enough to have to pay taxes every year, and that's only about half of the nation, you can pretty much count on the fact that you have now enjoyed the lowest tax payments you will ever pay.
Any business owners out there? Like the idea of your employees being able to unionize at the drop of a hat, forcing you to pay them 3 or 4 times what the market justifies? How about the idea that union thugs can target the one or two employees who don't want to unionize, because they've lost their right to a secret vote? Obama's got to repay Big Labor for putting him in office.
This is for all of you so-called pro-life voters who decided Obama was moderate enough to win your vote: On his first day in office, President Obama has decided to repeal a law which prevents your tax dollars from being used to fund international abortion groups. That's right, taxpayer funded abortions, and that's just his first day...
Go ask a Brit about government-run healthcare. Need I say more? Well, I will anyway. Have we lost our minds? Please to name one thing the government has ever run that has been run with anything resembling competence. Public schools? Social Security? Welfare?

I could go on, but it would be too depressing. Basically, if you think the government is the answer to all your problems, you'll love this guy. At least until the government taxes the people who provide your job to the point that they can't be competitive, and they move their operation overseas.

It's not a popular thing to say right now, but I refuse to generically "hope our new president succeeds." Succeeds at what? Making us into a more government-reliant, socialist nation? No thanks. I'll support him if I believe that his policies are what's best for America, but judging by his campaign, he doesn't have a clue. His ideas are not new. They certainly don't represent change. They're the same old liberal ideas that have failed in the past, and if he goes through with them, they will fail this time as well.

I hope I'm wrong about this guy. And I refuse to stop loving my country, like so many on the left, just because "the other side" is in charge. We have to take this nation back from the ground up, and republicans don't need to go along with any of the policies that we don't believe will work. I echo Erick's cry concerning the de-Stimulus Plan. None of our GOP representatives should support it, or any other policy that undermines conservatism, just so we can say we got something done.

Patriotism is Cool Again

2009-01-20T09:37:00.004-05:00

I was thinking about this yesterday, after catching little bits and pieces of the Immaculate Obaminauguration, and I'm glad to see that others have noticed the sudden surge of patriotism among liberals. You know, I don't recall a single liberal waving an American flag, or singing patriotic songs during the last 8 years. Yet another example of the utter childishness of so many on the left. They're only patriotic when "their side" is in charge. For the last 8 years, while Chimpy McBush Hitler was taking orders from Darth Cheney, America was derided as an evil empire.

When a big bad conservative is in office, America is the reason for every bad thing that happens around the world. We don't just see rational opposition to the policies being implemented during times of conservative rule, we see flags burned, unruly crowds spitting on people they disagree with, and behavior that suggests a complete hatred for all things American.

But how quickly we are reminded not to question anyone's patriotism. So, now that Barack is President, and the Democrats control congress, America is back to being the best nation on earth, and liberals nationwide love their country again. I'm sorry, but I question that brand of "patriotism." Please note the behavior of conservatives over the next 4 years, and let me know if you see any flag burning, spitting, riots, or general America-bashing when our new president tries to implement socialized medicine, run our economy into the ground with hysterical responses to the myth of global warming, or expand the so-called right to abortions.

I wouldn't hold you breath. You see, aside from the fact that most of us conservatives have actual careers and families, we just don't operate that way. We've had to grow up. And when you grow up and become a big person, you don't pitch a fit every time you don't get your way. I for one love this country no matter who is in charge. I won't agree with everything President Obama does, and I will vocally oppose him when necessary, but I will continue to love this nation no matter what he or anyone else does.

America is still the best nation on earth - even under a president I don't like, trust, or agree with. It's called living in a democracy. We've come to terms with that. When are these other idiots going to grow up?

Back to Work

2009-01-06T09:07:00.005-05:00

I feel like I've been out of touch with the world for the last month, as we spent time in Tucson, AZ and Park City, UT. It was really the first time I've done any major travelling since a trip to Hawaii a few years ago, and I'd forgotten how tiring it can be. It's taken a while to get back on schedule, and making time to post on here has been even harder, but I'm finally getting back in the groove.

We've had an interesting couple of weeks leading up to the inauguration, and I have to admit that I'm getting a little bit nauseous at the giant collective joygasm over this guy. So many people are going to be so very disappointed...

It's been very enlightening, watching the media and others fawning over our new president, and I'll be very interested to see how everyone views him this time next year. My instinct is that our new president is "too big to fail." We've been hearing that a lot in the last few months, mostly concerning banks and other financial institutions, but I think it certainly applies to President Obama (see that...I referred to him as "President Obama", even though I disagree with him...I refuse to descend into the kind of dispicable, immature behavior we've witnessed from the left over the last 8 years).

The media has far too much invested in the phenomenon that is President Obama to ever allow him to fail. No matter what he does, and I honestly believe he will make some very big mistakes over the next four years, his tenure in office will never be portrayed as anything other than a complete success. The left has too much to lose. A lot of folks will laugh at this, but look at our outgoing president. The man was able to keep America free of terrorist attacks after 9/11, got our economy going after inheriting a recession (you won't convince me the current recession can be laid at his feet), and stood resolute in the face of some of the most childish and inane criticism any president has ever faced.

And yet, what is the general opinion among the ignorant masses? Everything from global warming to Katrina to the credit crunch is "Bush's fault." He's seen as the "Worst President Ever", thanks in large part to the media. Don't get me wrong. President Bush made many mistakes, and his refusal to stand up and defend himself was one of the most frustrating. He tried to govern as a "Big Government Conservative", an oxymoron to any true conservative, and he certainly deserves criticism for many bad decisions. But I for one believe that he will be remembered as a courageous man who was willing to be the villian, if it meant keeping us safe.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but in generations to come, he'll be remembered as he should be. Besides, he can't hold a candle to Jimmy Carter when it comes to "Worst President Ever", and judging by our new president's affinity for Carteresque policy, we may have a new benchmark in a few years time.

Thank you, President Bush.

Chris Kroc & Macon Politics

2008-12-18T09:01:00.005-05:00

Well Chris Kroc has certainly caused quite the stir in the last few days. He's been quite clear as to his opinion of Elaine Lucas ever since his trial period at the local talk radio show, and I don't know that too many folks would disagree with his rather quick assesment of her character. She's no Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen...

I must say I don't particularly go out of my way to listen to his show. It's just not really my style. But I do enjoy the fact that he gets under Big Momma's skin to such a delightful extent. She is the epitome of all that is wrong with Macon politics - thinks she's much more important than she will ever actually be, and tries to bully everyone around her into submission. Kudos to Erick for standing up to her antics. Some of the stories he tells of her behavior in council meetings are just plain hilarious - or they would be if she weren't so pathetic. Let's just say my daughter had more character and a thicker skin at the age of 3 than she does right now as an adult.

I also enjoyed hearing about Chris' protest at the St. Paul AME church, as the Wrong Rev. Wright's Circus of Blasphemy rolled into town. God has a special place for so-called pastors who abuse their pulpit to spread hatred. Something tells me it's not very good place. I find it pretty appalling that our mayor would be in the same room as this man, much less praise his work as "based out of biblical scripture."

I like our mayor. His response to the little email spat between Erick and Elaine was an example of good leadership, and I think he's been great for this city. But I've lost a great deal of respect for him since his endorsement of Barack (he was eeyunspiiiired!), and now this utter nonsense on a man who literally foments hatred and division. From the pulpit. I expect better from him, and I suspect that deep down he knows what a scumbag this guy is.

Ah, the politics of MacTown. Such a magical place. Full of wonder.

It's About Time...

2008-12-12T08:32:00.003-05:00

It's been far too long since I've had any time to blog, but I have to make time to say a little something on the auto-bailout. It looks like Republicans in the senate finally grew a set and made a stand against a very bad idea. Good on ya, GOP, for standing up to what would've amounted to a big fat check for the UAW - the very people responsible for putting the Big Three automakers in this mess. I hate the idea that people may loose their jobs, but the union easily could've made concessions to reduce their exorbitant labor costs. Unfortunately, they know that the incoming administration and congress will be more, shall we say "labor friendly", especially considering that Big Labor money helped purchase the White House and many of the gained seats in both houses.

I really have very little pity for any company that pays its workers well beyond what their worth, refuses to even consider reducing those salaries and benefits, while asking - no demanding - that the taxpayers bail them out of their own bad management decisions. It would be a lot easier to accept some sort of intervention if the companies were willing to restructure in such a way that their labor costs are more in line with the rest of America, making it at least more likely that they'll be competitive and have some chance of remaining solvent.

But it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to pour billions into a company that refuses to fix what got them here in the first place. I didn't like the financial bailout plan much either, but we at least knew that their was a chance - and some say even a good chance - that the taxpayers actually get their money back from that. Make no mistake about it: there is NO CHANCE the American people ever see any benefit from this money. It is not an "investment" of taxpayer dollars; it is a gift. And most folks even admit that they'll just be back for more in 12 months.

The US automakers are insolvent in their current organizational structure. They are far too big, pay their workers and retirees far too much money compared to other companies, and they do not deserve this gift. I hope the president decides against using the TARP money to keep these companies in existence. But if he does, he at least needs to force some serious concessions from the UAW. I say let GM go down - Ford or some other company in a better position can acquire many of its facilities and workers, and retool to meet the demands of the existing market.

Just mark this down as yet another reason to abolish labor unions. All of them.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-26T13:18:00.005-05:00

"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty." -Edward Winslow, Plymouth Plantation-1621

I've always felt that Thanksgiving is too often overshadowed by its proximity to Christmas. We tend to forget that our nation would not exist, at least not in its current form, without the events surrounding that first Thanksgiving day. The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth Plantation had a difficult first year in America, but they perservered through unthinkable hardships in order to establish a new place of religious freedom. We owe much to the men and women who put their trust in God, as well as the people of the Wampanoag tribe, whom God used to preserve our ancestors during this time.

Why celebrate Thanksgiving as a national holiday? I think it's pretty clear that the "First Thanksgiving" was a critical turning point in our nation's birth. Every freedom we now enjoy can be attributed to the families who risked everything to come here, and to the God who sustained them and this nation through that and many subsequent times of trial. As George Washington said in 1789, after another critical time in our nation's history:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

Only in America

2008-11-26T12:09:00.003-05:00

It seems that with each passing year, we hear more and more outrageous stories about some poor idiot with nothing better to do than try and ruin Thanksgiving or Christmas for everyone else. The first report of such shenanigans for this year's holiday season comes from - surprise, surprise - California. I'm familiar with the typical liberal argument that Thanksgiving is really a celebration of oppression and "genocide." Yes, it's hard to believe, but apparently some people do actually pay attention to what fat, anti-American movie directors have to say about our nation's history. Now we have a school banning the use of pilgrim and indian costumes for their Thanksgiving celebration, all because some hippie has decided she's offended.

Here we see the effects of our pathetically impotent, politically-correct education system in all its grandeur. This woman, who I'm sure was educated in one of our nation's shining beacons of educational underachievement known as public schools, is ruining Thanksgiving for a bunch of kindergarteners. Of course, all of this could have been avoided had she, and the millions of other products of government education, been properly informed as to the actual historical events surrounding Thanksgiving. Instead, school-kids all over the nation are being fed a bunch of nonsense designed to induce the guilt that liberals believe we should all experience as a result of our ancestors' actions.

We're also beginning to see the consequences of liberal hypocrisy in their intolerance of Christianity's celebration of Christmas. We all know that liberals only practice tolerance of beliefs that are in line with their own silly little worldview, it just becomes more obvious this time of year. So, make it a point to say Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas to as many people as you can this holiday season. Make sure your Christmas cards say "Merry CHRISTMAS" instead of Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings, and be sure to tell your kids about the true history of Thanksgiving, as described here.

Oh, and - do I really need to say this? - don't let the government educate your kids.

Sarah! and Saxby

2008-11-25T12:54:00.003-05:00

I had heard from someone on Saxby's staff last week that the campaign was working on getting Governor Sarah Palin down to Georgia to help get voters fired up over the run-off. Well, according to the Telegraph, Sarah! has agreed to come to the rescue. The closest she'll get to Macon is Perry - chosen, I suppose, so that the Ag Center can be used as a venue to host the sizeable crowd she will no doubt draw. She's a popular gal in these parts - and for good reason. She'll also be coming to Augusta, Savannah, and Atlanta.

Governor Palin did what I thought would be impossible during the recent campaign: she got the justifiably suspicious conservative base of the GOP fired up in spite of the squish at the head of the ticket. Her enduring popularity proves the idiocy of those Republican elites who suggest that she is responsible for dragging McCain down, and puts the sword to any argument that the GOP needs to abandon its traditional conservative principles.

Her presence here, along with the likes of Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and other Republican big guns who have stopped in to stump for Saxby over the last few weeks, also shows the importance of this run-off election. A 60 seat majority for the Democrats would be catastrophic, not just for the GOP, but for the future of this nation. The Democrat leadership has already made it clear that they intend to take full advantage of the current crisis situation, and the general feeling of panic beginning to spread throughout the population.

As Rahm Emanuel has said, this crisis represents an opportunity for government to take more radical steps than would normally be tolerated by a still center-right electorate. We are already watching our great nation teetering on the brink of socialism, and 60 votes in the Senate all but guarantees that even more drastic and permanent steps will be taken in the wrong direction. If you call yourself a conservative, then you have no excuse for sitting this one out, or for voting against Saxby Chambliss. You may not agree with everything he has done - I don't - but you cannot make a credible argument for doing anything other than voting for the GOP in this case.

This election has been painful. We lost. Big time. And I can understand a certain satisfaction in watching the politicians who have failed to advance conservatism in office crash and burn. It's almost as if we need a little pruning to be stronger in the long run. But too much pruning can be a very bad thing. We need to leave enough branches in place to keep the tree alive. We must leave our party in a position to mount a serious opposition to the people now in charge. We need to get over ourselves and lay the groundwork for a conservative comeback. The first, and most important way to do so is by helping get Saxby Chambliss re-elected.

Macon Construction

2008-11-21T09:35:00.007-05:00

The Telegraph reports today on the ground-breaking ceremony for my latest project, Capital City Bank's new downtown branch, to be built on the corner of Fifth Street and MLK, Jr. Blvd. The new building will be a 3-story brick structure, designed specifically for the unique site by Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Associates of Atlanta. For those of you who have been around Macon for a while, it's going on the site of the former Green Jacket restaurant, adjacent to the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame.

It's great to see some new, private construction going on in Macon, and kudos to Capital City for going ahead with what will be a very nice building in such a difficult financial market. The new branch will house a large conference room on the 3rd floor, which will be available to outside organizations throughout the year, and a large open balcony from which Maconites will be able to watch the annual Cherry Blossom Parade downtown. The design is quite unique, and will blend in well with the surrounding Gateway Plaza, Peyton Anderson, and Sports and Music Halls of Fame structures.

Local contractor Chris R. Sheridan will be handling the nuts and bolts of getting this thing built, and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product. I'd love to post a rendering of the building, but I need to get permission before doing so. I'll try to post photos of the project as it progresses. Check back later for more info!

Hope and Change

2008-11-21T09:12:00.002-05:00

I've been a little burned out on politics lately, and after a discouraging election it's been difficult to find the motivation to blog. I'm thinking I'll switch gears a little bit and focus more on theology and maybe some local issues. I'll still be keeping an eye on the political world, as I believe that politics and public policy should be a major focus for Christians to put their faith into practice. As Obama's prospective presidency is shaping up to look more and more like a sick mutation of Clinton and Carter part two, there will no doubt be many opportunities to comment on his performance.

As I've said before, I sincerely hope he proves me wrong and does a good job of leading us through a difficult time. I'll support him when he makes the right decisions, and call him out when he doesn't. In the end, we are called to support and pray for our leaders, following their leadership whenever it does not directly contradict Scripture. Ligon Duncan has some good things to say about our situation on Reformation 21:

We ought to commit ourselves to pray for our new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We will do this, not only because of the biblical command to pray for our rulers, but because of the second greatest commandment "Love your neighbor" and what better way to love your neighbor, than to pray for his well-being. Those with the greatest moral and political differences with the President-Elect ought to ask God to engender in them, by His Spirit, genuine neighbor-love for Mr. Obama...

We will pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of crucial moral concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.

For those Christians who are more dismayed than overjoyed about the prospects of an Obama presidency, there should be a remembrance that as our President, Barack Obama will have God-given authority to govern us, and that we should view him as a servant of God (Rom. 13:1, 4) to whom we should be subject (Rom. 13:1, 5; 1 Pet. 2:13-14). Thus, again, we are to pray for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We are to thank God for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We are to respect Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7). We are to honor Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17)...

Without doubt and whatever our particular views may be, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must all expect to be frustrated and disappointed. Some now may feel defeated and discouraged. While others may all-too-soon find their audacious hopes unfounded and unrealized. We must all keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up leaders and nations, and it is God who pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think like unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.

No Union Bailouts

2008-11-18T12:14:00.004-05:00

I don't like this auto bailout one bit. They're basically asking us to pay for the mess made by labor unions. I realize that many people will lose their jobs, pensions, etc. if GM is allowed to go under, but simply giving them a blank check with no conditions would be idiotic. All three of the Detroit automakers need to go through a complete restructuring process, and this should be a condition of any taxpayer money being sent in their direction.

I believe that most of the problems they are facing right now can be traced back to labor unions and our government's self-defeating tax policies. You'd almost have to be an idiot to try and run a large company in this country, especially now that the socialists have taken over. Corporate tax rates are exorbitant in comparison to our main international competitors, and labor unions are costing all of us more than they are worth. These companies are not competitive in their own market because they aren't competing on a level playing field.

I say no bailout unless the UAW is forced to renegotiate their labor contracts, reducing salaries and benefits down to what the market decides is reasonable. We, the taxpayers, are not the ones who should have to tighten our belts, while the people responsible for this whole mess keep on as if nothing is wrong. Congressional conservatives should oppose any legislation that doesn't force a big change in the way these companies do business.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect the same from our president in waiting. Big Labor helped purchase his place in the White House, and we all know what that means. Change we can believe in, my arse.

Kids Love Their Nanny (State)

2008-11-12T16:04:00.001-05:00

Erick has an interesting post up today about a post election study concerning people’s views on the role of government. One of the more interesting results of this study comes from the respondents’ answers to how large and active the government should be in the lives of its citizens. It’s not exactly surprising that a majority of people who label themselves Democrats or liberal are in favor of a larger government with more social programs, but overall, 53% of people are in favor of “smaller government with fewer services”, while 28% are in favor of the opposite.

One interesting result, however, is seen in the fact that a majority of 18 – 25 year olds favor a larger government. I’m not really surprised by this either, as most young folks tend to be more liberal. But why is it that this is the case? Why are so many of those in their early 20’s susceptible to a view of government that is completely at odds with what the founders of this nation envisioned? There are many reasons, the first of which is likely a severe lack of quality in education throughout our nation. Political correctness has taken its toll on the quality and contents of most history textbooks, and teachers unions, like pretty much every union, continue to have an adverse effect on the end product.

And let’s not kid ourselves with respect to higher institutions of learning. Colleges and universities have become havens for liberalism – likely because that’s the only place ideas don’t actually have to be put into practice – and your average professor isn’t exactly a champion of small government conservatism. Anything is possible in the dream-world of academia, and with a captive audience whose real-world experience is even more limited than that of their esteemed professors, brainwashing becomes an incredibly fruitful and rewarding enterprise, I’m sure.

So, between the ages of 18 and 25, most people have been ill informed as to the historical nature and purpose of their government, received at least 4 years of indoctrination from people whose ideas wouldn’t cut it in the real world, haven’t had to pay taxes, and have had very little time to actually watch their government in action. There’s a reason people become more conservative and anti-government later in life. I would challenge anyone to list one single social enterprise our federal government has ever taken on that has resulted in anything even remotely resembling efficiency or success. Social Security? Medicaire?, Public Education?

And now we are about to embark on an experiment in government run healthcare! Because it’s been sooooo successful everywhere else in the world, I suppose. Excellent.

And So It Begins...

2008-11-07T08:27:00.003-05:00

I had to wait several days to write about the election results. To say that I'm dissappointed would be an understatement, but I'm not depressed. Most of us saw this one coming, and knew it would be a rough night for the GOP. That being said, I don't believe this to be a repudiation of conservatism for a number of reasons. First and foremost, Obama ran on plenty of conservative ideals. He promised tax cuts, albeit with a populist twist, and even tried to convince people he was "pro-life."

In fact, he succeeded in giving many believers, especially African Americans, an excuse to rationalize their support for him in spite of his horrific record on abortion. Many of them will outright refuse to admit to this day that he supports abortion. I realize that any black American is going to have a difficult time voting against Obama, despite the fact that he is considerably more liberal than most of them.

And while I ultimately think that Obama's presidency is going to be very bad for America from an economical and political standpoint, I also recognize that his election will be good for America. The election of the nation's first black president is historic, and encouraging for many reasons. While I worry about his policy positions and his character, I can still be inspired by how far our nation has come in the last 50 years or so. I can celebrate our nation getting beyond the racial barrier, while at the same time wishing our nation's first black president didn't have to be a socialist liberal.

I hate to admit it, but I did feel the slightest bit of pride, tempered with dread, the morning after the election. I sincerely hope that President-elect Obama will prove me wrong - for the sake of my nation and our children's futures, I really do hope that he will be a successful president. His record does not give me confidence, but I'll support him as president, unlike the idiots on the left have done for the past 8 years, because that's what grown-up Americans do.

My guess is that he'll be too busy handling the wars, economic crises, and potential threats from Russia (all of which will no doubt be blamed on evil republicans and Bush) to actually be able to enact many of his misguided plans - at least for the next few years. The real threat will be coming from congress, as I don't see too much chance of Obama using the veto pen against the idiocy Pelosi and Reid will no doubt be producing.

So, that's my final vent on the presidential election of 2008. We will have a new leader in a few months, and while I don't trust or particularly like him, I recognize that he has been put in this place for a reason. For that reason I will pray for him, and hope that he follows up on his promises for a "new era of change in Washington." If he actually does manage to "change" Washington through real bipartisanship, then I will give him full credit.

However, I will always judge his actions from the standpoint of conservatism, the last best hope for this nation. I'm predicting Jimmy Carter part deux...I hope I'm wrong.

Election Day!!

2008-11-04T09:29:00.004-05:00

Wow. I haven't posted anything in a while, but I have to get my election day thoughts out in the open before I go crazy. Work will have to wait.

I have to admit that I've been pretty much resigned to losing this election for the past few weeks. But I also will say that I've always been suspicious of polls. We all know by now that the polls are predicting a close to fairly comfortable win for Obama. We also know that many of these polls are oversampling Democrats because pollsters assume there will be more Democrats voting this year. While it is true that the Democrat Party has registered more new voters than the GOP, that doesn't necessarily translate into votes. We can also look back to the last 2 elections and see where the polls were all very wrong.

I'm not going to get into the theories about pollsters intentionally skewing their data to demoralize conservatives, or to send the message that an Obama win is 'inevitable.' I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this were the case, but no one knows for sure. All we can do is look at the different variables in this election, and see that there are far too many unknowns for any predictions to be accurate.

Early voting will no doubt have some impact, as many people who may not have made time to vote on election day will have had weeks to do so in some states. My gut tells me that this will favor Democrats. We also know that many more black voters will go to the polls this year than in previous years because of Obama's ethnicity. It doesn't matter that he likely has very little in common with most black Americans.

It's sad, but many of them honestly believe that Barack is now going to give them everything they want. Seriously. This is not an isolated issue. Talk to the school teachers and find out what their students are telling them about an Obama presidency. They're going to be very disappointed if he does get into office, but right now they are fired up and going to the polls - at least it seems that way here in Macon.

I got to my polling location this morning just before 8am, and there was a moderate line inside the building. I waited about 30 minutes before voting, but in that time I saw 4 different people being told that their address didn't match or that they were at the wrong precinct. All 4 were allowed to vote. All they had to do was fill out a 'change of address' form. Is it that difficult to follow the rules? How do we know these people didn't go to another polling place and cast another vote? Of course, they can't be turned away, or told to go to the correct polling place, because that would be 'voter intimidation', and the ACLU would be all over it.

We're already hearing about issues all over the country, but especially in battleground states. Pennsylvania looks to be one of the pivotal states in this race. Erick has said that he now thinks that if McCain can carry PA, he'll win the election. North Carolina and Virginia should also be two early indicators of how McCain will do tonight. If it's still 'too close to call' in PA and VA when the polls close, then I'd say we have a shot. I would love nothing more than for the media, all the pollsters, and all of Europe to once again be proved wrong. I think it's going to be close, but I'm praying for a good night.

A Marked Contrast

2008-10-24T11:12:00.004-04:00

I just couldn't resist pointing somthing out to those who are still wavering as to their allegiance in this election. As millions of college professors and students, hollywood actors, and the undereducated masses dream of the socialist utopia coming from what they see as an inevitable Obama victory, those who actually keep this nation's economy on track - the evil rich business leaders - are running for the hills.

There is no question that Obama's economic policies will take money from those who achieve and give it to those who don't. Even Joe the Plumber can see through the insulting platitudes. What so many don't realize, is that those who achieve are also those who provide jobs. Punish them, and you punish everyone else. Are we really going to welcome Jimmy Carter's policies back to the White House? Because that turned out so well the first time...

So, undecideds: who are you gonna listen to? If you think the people who have made something of themselves deserve to be punished for their success, then I can't help you. But if you've worked hard to achieve something, or plan to any time in the next few years, then I suggest you listen to those of us in the real world. Obama's plans will provide success and power for no one save his own political party, at the expense of everyone - not just the achievers.

Kids Vote Obama...Shocker

2008-10-21T13:02:00.003-04:00

What a surprise...Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President results are in, and Barack Obama is the winner. My daughter will be irate. So, is there anything useful we can learn from this?

Well, for one thing, we now know that if pre-teens were allowed to choose our president, they'd go with Obama. Shocker.

But the margin of Obama's mock victory actually is a bit surprising, especially considering that Barry is supposed to be the "kewl" candidate this election season. Supporting BO is all the rage, don't you know. So you'd think that the hip hero of HopeChangeHope would've won by a landslide...well, not so much. 51%-49% isn't exactly convincing.

Let's all remind ourselves that John Kerry - the antithesis of cool - was the Kid's choice for prez back in 2004, winning 57% of the teeny-bopper vote. That was the first time Nick's mock election failed to accurately predict the winner since its first poll in 1988.

Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves

2008-10-20T10:18:00.004-04:00

Over the past few days I've been trying to convince myself that things will be fine if Obama is elected president. I've tried to tell myself that his disasterous policies will awaken the sleeping masses of ordinary Americans, who I believe are still moderately conservative overall, much like the Carter administration helped to sweep Reagan into office. I told myself that the damage Obama, and an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, will undoubtedly cause can be reversed in the years following his time in office.

Then I read Michael Medved's column in Townhall. Talk about a wake-up call. Those of us who are already trying to rationalize away the potential ramifications of an Obama presidency would do well to listen to these warnings. There is no question that a likely 8 years of this kind of leadership would have dramatic effects on the future of this nation. My daughter will be leaving for college at the end of this hypothetical Obama presidency, and the picture I see for her future is not bright.

Under Obama's promised policies we will no longer live in a nation that rewards hard work with success, but will see those who achieve success duly punished by having to pay for those who don't. We will see even larger groups of people bought and paid for by the Democrat Party - "free" health care, unlimited access to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and an unprecedented expansion of every failed government program in existence, all in exchange for thousands of new welfare addicts - aka, loyal Democrat voters.

I believe this is why it's so difficult for the conservative movement to maintain power for long periods of time. The New Deal laid the ground work for a powerful political strategy: secure power for the Democrat Party by using government to buy people off. Let the government pay for its citizens' healthcare, housing, education, retirement, etc. Give the ignorant, short-sighted, lazy masses what they want, and you have a strong base of loyal voters for life.

The conservative philosophy, however, encourages a strong sense of personal responsibility, hard work, and individual freedom. Get the government out of the way, and the American people will prosper as a result. There is a reason socialism has failed every time it has been tried - it removes any incentive for success. And as Michael points out, once a government entitlement program is created, the likelihood of it ever being dismantled is very small.

I'm just now starting to appreciate the true significance of this election. Barack Obama's policies, easily implemented by a huge Democrat majority in congress, could not only run this country into the ground, but could create millions of new loyal Democrat voters at the expense of our economy. Yes, it may awaken the silent majority of honest, hardworking Americans to usher in the next Ronald Reagan; but at that point it will likely be too late.

I don't honestly believe that the American people, on the whole, want our nation to move more towards socialism. But I also doubt that too many people are thinking about the direction of our nation right now. Most people are more concerned about their own problems, and at this point want someone to "pay" for them. People want change. They want someone else to make their oversized mortgage payments, pay for their healthcare, and provide free daycare in the form of government "preschool" programs. That all sounds great to the cash-strapped masses.

These are frightening times for those who worry about the direction of our nation. We need to remember to trust in God's sovereignty, and in His ability to work out His will, even in the face of leaders who are likely to oppose it. It's time to stop worrying, and start praying.

Jim Marshall, Democrublican

2008-10-15T13:24:00.003-04:00

My congressman, Jim Marshall, has always been a pretty bright guy. He realizes that the district he represents is extremely conservative. He managed to get elected to congress due to his popularity in Bibb County and Macon, where he also served as mayor, and has survived the republican ascendancy of the last decade mainly by distancing himself from his own party.

His last win, however, was by a very narrow margin, despite the GOP bloodbath of 2006. As Erick pointed out last week, his district has now been redrawn to pretty much mirror what it looked like when Saxby represented it. I believe Saxby, despite polls that show his current campaign relatively close, is still fairly popular in this district. Whether that will help Marshall's opponent, Rick Goddard, remains to be seen, but as I pointed out several months ago, it wouldn't take much to bring Marshall down.

Even in the 2006 election - a disaster for the GOP nationally- Collins [Marshall's 2006 opponent] only fell short by 1752 votes, or one percentage point, after running a fairly lackluster campaign. The problem is that Goddard, or any candidate for this seat, needs to make significant gains in Bibb county, where Marshall received nearly 60% of the vote, in order to win the seat. So far, Marshall has too much support from voters in this area who otherwise tend to support conservatives. Proof of this can be seen in the results for Governor in this same election. Sonny Perdue won over Democrat Mark Taylor by 1881 votes in Bibb County. Overall, 18,954 Bibb County voters chose Perdue, while only 13,893 voted for Collins.

Jim Marshall has been running ads all over television and radio - something he has not really done in the past. This suggests that he is at least somewhat concerned about his chances this year. His latest ad is, quite frankly, hilarious. It's been airing on the local radio station, which broadcasts conservative talk shows like Boortz, Limbaugh, and Hannity all day long. In the ad, Marshall brags about his endorsement from the NRA (a poor decision by the NRA, despite his support for gun rights), and even claims that "conservatives Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh have praised" his record as a congressman.

The ad is basically claiming that Marshall is just as conservative as Rick Goddard, and is clearly aimed at the conservative talk radio market. The problem is that Jim Marshall is no conservative. His sponsorship of the biggest gift to union thugs in history alone proves that. The bottom line is that he knows he has to pretend to be conservative to keep his job, voting with the GOP on Democrat initiatives that he knows will pass anyway, and hiding behind the liberal leadership that HE helps put in place.

Wake up conservatives! He may vote with the GOP sometimes, but he puts people like Pelosi in charge of the House, and indirectly advances his party's liberal policy agenda no matter how he votes. I feel a letter to the editor coming on...

100

2008-10-15T12:12:00.003-04:00

Apparently, this is my 100th post since stepping into the blogging realm. I hate to be so gloomy at such a milestone, but things are not looking good for conservatives. Most of the folks "in the know" within conservative circles are preparing for a very bad day on November 4. John McCain remains the only hope for salvaging something from what looks more and more like an impending electoral slaughter. And even his chances have been severely hindered by the current economic mess.

I was pretty optimistic a month ago, with the race virtually tied in a political climate that should have provided any competent Democrat with an easy victory. The economic crisis has changed all that. Never mind that it was Democrats who got us into this mess in the first place. Americans are too apathetic and ignorant to bother finding out the real causes for this crisis. The GOP was in charge, so it must be their fault. Unfortunately, it looks like this ignorance may help to put those people in place who can do the most harm in such a situation.

Some are now talking about a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Even Saxby may now be in trouble. If this does occur, we're in deep horse manure - especially with Barry McSocialism in the White House, ready to sign whatever take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor plan Reid and Pelosi can come up with. It's all very depressing to be honest. Thankfully, we have some assurance that we're not really at the mercy of the ignorant masses:

"Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding." Daniel 2:20,21

Who knows...a lot can happen in 3 weeks time. If John McCain can come out swinging in this last debate, challenging Obama on all of his lies and distortions, he can go a long way towards energizing his base, if nothing else. But if not, we can rest in the fact that God has proven in the past that His will can be accomplished by, or in spite of, even the worst of leaders.

Besides, Rush was at his most entertaining when America had its last bad president. If nothing else, the inevitable resurgence of conservatism after the Carter-like performance we are sure to get from Obama shows, once again, the idiocy of liberalism, will make it all worth while.

Bailout Bust

2008-10-09T09:24:00.003-04:00

Well, it looks like our good friends in Washington have managed to once again take a bad idea and make it much worse. I admit that the bailout bill was probably necessary, and that after having looked at the actual details of the plan, the charges of socialism are a wee bit exagerated. The populist rhetoric about taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to the Wall Street fat-cats is not exactly true.

The plan was necessary to avoid a total collapse of our financial system, or so we were told, and I was okay with it in the end. I didn't like it, but would rather be able to cash my paycheck next week, even if it meant moving wildly to the brink of socialism. Unfortunately, congress couldn't even get that right. From what a lot of folks are now saying, the bill has been passed too late to have its full effect. If that's true, we've just flushed $700 billion down the toilet, and will suffer anyway.

The biggest issue with all of this, however, is that we need leadership in place which will take us back from the edge of socialist policy once this crisis is over. I believe it was necessary for the government to step in and help avert a disaster, but the government must be made to step back once all of this blows over. Folks are now talking about the Fed nationalizing the major financial institutions in the U.S. If this happens, things are even more critical.

Barack Obama is not a free market kind of guy. His instinct is to use government to solve everyone's problems, and he cannot be trusted to lead our nation back to its proven system of captitalism. Combine that with the fact that he plans to increase government spending in virtually every area (besides defense), and this crisis will look like a tea party after 4 to 8 years of his leadership.

Do we really want to put a glorified political activist, with the arrogance and common sense of a college professor, in charge of all of this? Seriously?

SNL Gets it Right

2008-10-08T08:57:00.002-04:00

This is just brilliant. I also find it astonishing that NBC, basically a mouthpiece for Democrats in this election season, decided to air something so...truthful.

Let's put a socialist in charge!

2008-10-08T08:25:00.003-04:00

It's been difficult to find time to blog lately, but I feel the need to vent. I'm starting to believe that this financial crisis could be the end of McCain's chances for the presidency. The problem, of course, is that we're about to put an avowed socialist in charge of our nation. This socialist will have the responsibility of charting a course out of this economic mess, and I have little faith that such a course will lead anywhere but down the path of more government control and less freedom.

Obama's charge that it was a lack of regulation that led to the current crisis is not only silly, it's insulting to those of us who actually bother to educate ourselves concerning such things. Even Saturday Night Live has a better grasp on the cause of this crisis. Obama's buddies over at ACORN and Fannie/Freddie have run our economy into the ground. Sure, we can say that republicans did too little to stop shady lending practices encouraged by the government, but they at least acknowledged the problem years ago, and made an attempt at regulation.

The simple fact is that this crisis can be laid at the feet of liberal democrat policy, pushed by Clinton, Barney Frank (at the behest of his lover at Fannie Mae), Obama, and every other Democrat who wanted to give everyone a home - regardless of their ability to pay for it. Liberal policy and government regulation created this problem - it is not the solution.

Government is never the antedote to anything...other than prosperity.

Bailout

2008-09-24T11:29:00.003-04:00

According to Blackhedd, the TARP plan being pushed by Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke is, in fact, a bailout. He goes into the details here, but the gist of it, as I understand it, is as follows:

The government will set up a new entity (the First National "Bad Bank") that will purchase all of Wall Street's investments in bad loans. This will allow the banks to get their bad debts off of their balance sheets, and hopefully let them start pumping money back into our economy through making loans, etc. The word is that if this doesn't happen, many banks will fail, and others will stop making loans altogether, shaking the foundations of our economy, leading to deflation, loss of jobs, bad things in general...

The problem, and where this plan becomes either a bailout of Wall Street, or a necessary intervention by the government for stability, is in the actual valuation of the mortgage-based assets being purchased. According to Blackhedd, if the government purchases these assets at too low a price, the banks (at least those who made bad loans) will lose too much money, and collapse anyway. If the valuation is too high, the banks make out like bandits, basically being rewarded for bad behavior, and inflation will occur in the general economy.

From the testimony to congress yesterday, it sounds like the current plan is to err on the side of inflation, and overvalue the assets. This is not sitting well with conservatives (myself included) as it is basically proof that the administration wants to "bail out" the Wall Street executives. I don't think that's their underlying motive - as Blackhedd points out, Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and knows all about the dangers of deflation - they are most likely ensuring that the economy stays strong overall. But this looks very bad in the eyes of the general public. The Republicans are helping out their rich, evil CEO buddies on Wall Street, at the expense of us poor folks.

Politically, this is very bad for the GOP. If we oppose the plan on principle, we risk a serious depression in the economy, for which Republicans will take the blame. If we support it, we play in to the left's stereotypes of handouts for the rich. Overall, I think this dangerous step towards socialism is going to be a necessary evil. The capitalist in me wants the government to take a hands-off approach to this - allowing those who take foolish risks to reap their just rewards. But the father/husband/employee in me doesn't want to see the overall economy spiral into a depression, with banks unable to make loans, companies unable to expand and grow, and people losing their jobs left and right.

The scariest part of this is that we are delving into the world of socialism, while teetering dangerously close to electing a socialist in Obama, who will have to deal with this in the immediate future. A government with this much influence in the "free market" needs a leader who will work to get us back to where we started before all this happened, not someone whose instincts are to take us further down the road to socialism.

Pointing the Finger

2008-09-24T10:50:00.004-04:00

Well, everyone's doing it these days, so I thought I'd dig into some facts and see who really is to blame for this mess in the financial world. CNN is out with a poll showing that most people (a 2-to-1 margin) are blaming Republicans for the current crisis. That doesn't surprise me in the least, as most people don't bother to look for facts when it comes to this kind of thing. It's much easier to look at who's been in charge over the last few years, and lazily assume it's their fault.

And to a certain degree, a great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP for not working harder to make changes to a system that was sending out clear signs of warning for quite some time. But what exactly is at the heart of this current crisis? What is the underlying cause for so much bloodshed on Wall Street?

Blackhedd, at Redstate, has been a source of reliable inside information on this issue for the last few weeks, and thanks to him I think I've gotten a pretty good idea of what's happened. I'm no financial wizard by any means, but I do know that most people will agree that mortgage back securities are at the root of the current mess. When lots of people default on their mortgages, the companies who have invested in the associated securities lose their arses. So who's fault is it that these mortgage companies gave loans to people who couldn't afford them?

It was Democrat policy that started pressuring banks into "providing affordable housing" to any and everyone. It was Democrat policy that implemented Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. It was left-wing special interest groups like ACORN who threatened mortgage companies and banks with shutting down their operations if they refused to give risky loans. And it was Democrats in congress who blocked a bill, sponsored by John McCain, that would have reformed Fannie and Freddie back in 2005.

So, considering that the average person is either too apathetic or dimwitted to understand these facts, and the news media is all too willing to ignore them in pursuit of their own agenda, I suppose it makes perfect sense that the GOP is getting the blame. After all, we are all evil rich white guys who care about nothing but making money at the expense of poor people, right?

Victory on Drilling

2008-09-24T10:47:00.003-04:00

It looks like the Democrats may finally be caving in to the pressure from Republicans on offshore drilling. If this is true, and the ban is allowed to expire, then this is yet another victory for the GOP in this congress. It's also what the American people want, so I'm not really that surprised.

Pathetic.

2008-09-22T09:09:00.003-04:00

That is the only word for Obama's sorry excuse for leadership during this financial crisis. If this is what we can expect from an Obama presidency - waiting for you opponents to come up with a solution, and then criticizing it while offering nothing in the way of a solution yourself - then God help us. Jeff Emanuel gives us the details:

"As always, Barack Obama takes the easiest (and lowest) road. From having his political opponents removed from the ballot so that he could run unopposed (or the next closest thing to it), to repeatedly voting "present" on legislation, to, in this race, waiting for John McCain to take a position on an issue before making up his own mind on it, then coming out firing at McCain (rather than actually talking about his own position on, and proposed solution to, the issues), Obama's career has been marked by cop-outs, relationships of convenience with very disreputable figures, and machine-politics-as-usual attacks.

"This situation is no different. Obama is allowing the President, the rest of the Congress, and his own opponent in the presidential race to take all of the risk and make all of the statements, while he sits up straight on his highest of horses and tells them all that they're going about fixing the problem the wrong way."

This guy is the worst kind of man, let alone politician. He must not be president.

Dirty Campaign Tricks

2008-09-22T08:43:00.004-04:00

I learned a new term today - astroturfing - and apparently David Axelrod's name is synonymous with this lame tactic. Here we see yet another attempt by the Obama campaign to manufacture support from evangelical Christians. Conservative blogs across the net are experiencing an upswing in "Concerned Conservative Christians" who are suddenly spouting Obama campaign talking points.

Fortunately, it's easy to spot these morons. They almost always give themselves away by acting out the caricature of conservative Christians they have in their own mind.

And now, a PR firm with connections to the Obama campaign has been posting professionally made videos on YouTube, pretending that they're the result of a new "grassroots movement." They know they've been caught, and are already taking the videos down. Fortunately, the folks on our side made back-ups.

Seriously guys. This is pathetic.

Democrats Want High Gas Prices

2008-09-17T12:10:00.010-04:00

The House passed a bill yesterday that is similar to legislation being proposed in the Senate by Saxby and Johnny. In othe words, it does nothing to increase oil exploration in any significant way, but raises taxes on energy companies in order to fund alternative fuel research. In the Post article, Nancy Pelosi admits that the intent of this bill is not to encourage more drilling, but to seek alternative energy sources. Energy technologies in which she and her husband have invested, and which would make them very wealthy should they be implemented. Energy technologies which are not ready for widespread use, and would take years to implement.

So, the Dems are in no way interested in providing immediate relief in the face of high gas prices. They want to tax the oil companies, while pretending to allow drilling in very limited areas. Not only will we not see any decrease in fuel prices as a result of this bill, increased taxes on energy companies will only be passed on to us in the form of increased energy prices, thereby increasing the cost of fuel. Do these people think we're stupid? And 15 Republicans voted for this bill! It's time we sent a message to these disconnected morons. The only acceptable solution is to allow the ban on offshore drilling to expire, thereby opening up ALL of these areas for exploration.

I'm all for alternative fuels, and some day we will have them. But the simple fact is that it won't be any time soon, no matter how much money the government throws in that general direction. We have to exhaust every option available to us, and that means drill. Now. Everywhere.

More Bad News

2008-09-17T12:10:00.004-04:00

Well, so much for the Fed drawing a line. We, the taxpayers, are now on the hook for yet another company's poor judgement. And what message does this send to other similar institutions throughout our nation? The message is that, if you're a big enough corporation, the government will bail you out of whatever risks you take. So much for capitalism.

Many will argue that this was yet another necessary step to keep our economy stable, but I disagree. Capitalism is all about taking risks and reaping either the rewards or the consequences - take away one and the other will disappear as well. This is very bad news for our nation. The federal government now owns the largest insurance holding company in the country - that is a frightening reality. The U.S. government is not in the insurance, or any other business. Things are getting out of control, and those in charge have to be very careful, considering that this is completely uncharted territory. Read the link above in full for a very good analysis on what actually occured yesterday. As Blackhedd notes at the end of his post, some crucial decisions will have to be made in the coming months,

"There’s one more key thing I want to say, which reflects the fact that the AIG bailout is one of the most unprecedented things the government has ever done in peacetime.

The United States must not remain in the insurance business.

We’ve embarked, on one day’s notice, on precisely the path that free-market advocates consider a nightmare scenario. The largest insurance company in America is now owned and operated by the government, and has nearly unlimited access to cheap capital by virtue of the credit-quality enhancement provided by the Fed line of credit.

If you were one of AIG’s competitors, wouldn’t you be feeling a little bit like Tokyo when Godzilla is in town?

That’s the great hazard faced by the government now.

The only permissible course of action is for the feds to explicitly and openly put AIG on a path to liquidation."

This situation makes the upcoming election all the more important. What kind of president and congress do we want in Washington while the government is in such a dangerous position? Do we want a president who favors even more government involvement in every aspect of society making decisions like this?

What Were They Thinking?

2008-09-16T13:25:00.003-04:00

I hate to say this, but our two senators fully deserve the criticism being thrown at them from conservatives over the Gang of 10 energy "compromise." Erick gives us a nice summary of the legislation over at Peach Pundit, and it's pretty much what you would expect from a compromise between Democrats and the GOP. The spineless Republicans cave in to 90% of everything the Dems want, and get a whole lot of nothing in return.

Every. Stinking. Time.

Here's the deal:

"If Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have their way, most of the outer continental shelf (”OCS”) would be permanently off the table for expanded energy exploration. Right now, the ban on OCS exploration must be renewed annually.

10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.

10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.

2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic."

Oh, and the bill would also raise taxes on energy companies by $30 billion. Let me guess - Saxby and Johnny had to throw that little tidbit in to "sweeten the deal" for the populist Democrats who want to be able to say they stuck it to the big bad oil companies.

And what did they get in exchange?

Access to a small fraction of the resources we have available to us right now, and a PERMANENT ban on the rest. I'm sorry. I really do like Saxby, but this CANNOT happen. I really don't understand his, or any of the other Republicans' reasoning for this nonsense. The public has made it very clear that we want to drill everywhere, now. Just do it, already.

More on the Financial Crisis

2008-09-16T09:51:00.004-04:00

I'm glad the Fed finally decided to draw the line yesterday, refusing to bail out another big time financial company. The fact that Lehman Bros. was actually larger than Bear Sterns at the time of its bailout shows me that they're serious about letting the system work itself out of this mess. As a believer in capitalism, I'm fully supportive of allowing companies who take foolish risks to reap their rewards. The government is responsible for keeping this economy afloat, but whenever possible it should take a hands-off approach to the "free" market. It's now looking like AIG and Wachovia are in serious trouble as well. I'm afraid we're in for some difficult times ahead.

That brings me to Obama's latest charge that this crisis is a result of Republican economic policies. Apparently, he is unaware of the fact that it was the Democrat's New Deal creation, Fannie Mae, which began the process of loaning money to people who couldn't afford it. It was Democrat policy that produced a sense of entitlement to home ownership (and everything else) among the American public. I realize that it's fashionable to blame George Bush for everything bad that happens these days, but he didn't force any of these banks into irresponsible lending practices.

I lay full blame at the feet of The New Deal, America's first step towards the kind of pseudo-socialism that is bankrupting not only our financial institutions, but our government. Maybe a real disaster is what is necessary to shake us out of our lazy, entitlement mentality. Either way, more government intervention, the very root of the problems we now face, is not the solution. Obama may find it easy to stand and point fingers, but his only "solution" is more of the problem.

Wishful Thinking

2008-09-16T08:56:00.004-04:00

More proof that Obama is the political messiah that his worshippers think him to be:

He is apparently going to demonstrate that he is able to create, from nothing, a brand new species of supporter for his faltering campaign. How will he accomplish this unprecedented feat? Easy. By producing thousands of yard signs, bumper stickers, and buttons, appropriately labelled for said species of supporter. Think of it as a new take on "If you build it, they will come."

Get your "Believers for Barack" campaign paraphernalia, and become a part of Barry's newest experiment in wishful thinking. Check out the link to the campaign email, encouraging "people of all faith backgrounds" to become a Believer for Barack. In other words, it doesn't matter what you are a believer in, just that you believe something....which pretty much includes everyone on this planet. And now you know why he's the messiah.

Financial Woes

2008-09-15T09:50:00.002-04:00

I'm admittedly pretty ignorant of the complex mechanisms within the financial system, but even I can see that something bad is happening on Wall Street. One of the front page posters over at Redstate, Blackhedd, has helped me to understand more about this crisis than anyone else over the last several months, and he has some excellent posts up today concerning the latest problems with Lehman Brothers.

You can get caught up on situation here.

Another Celebrity Genius

2008-09-15T09:17:00.005-04:00

Lindsay Lohan has become the latest celebrity to help endear Sarah Palin to the general electorate. She put more than a few words together (all by herself, no doubt) on her MySpace page, slamming Palin's lack of experience and support for ideals that are not espoused by the hollywood elite. She also threw her considerable support (thousands of teeny-boppers and other well-informed political savants who will NOT forget about the election 3 days from now) behind the junior senator from Illinois - apparently totally oblivious to the irony of her charges concerning Palin's experience.

We shouldn't be too hard on poor Lindsay. She's just repeating what Matt Damon - who she probably thinks is the, "like, epitome of smartness, and stuff" - said a few days ago, and has now become the official hollywood talking point on the election. These are the kind of people who support Obama, and their disdain for an ordinary American woman (with more experience than their pick for president) is only helping to show the rest of this nation how Sarah Palin is one of us.

It's easy to see why liberals hate Sarah Palin. She is the perfect example of the successful practice of conservative principles, and she represents the majority of Americans. It's hard to see that from within the fantasy land of Hollywood, but it's true none the less.

LFC 2 - 1 Man. Utd.

2008-09-15T09:03:00.004-04:00

I just need to take a moment to smile, and maybe gloat a little. The Mighty Reds have finally beaten Manchester United - and without Torres or Gerrard! Could this be the year for a genuine title challenge? This was a big step, but the real litmus test will come against Stoke - just days after an away trip in the Champion's League. On paper, this should be no problem, but past experience has shown this type of situation to be very tricky. If the Reds can take care of business against a limited but scrappy side, after playing in Europe, then I'll really be excited.

9/11 Anniversary Links

2008-09-11T15:33:00.003-04:00

There are plenty of great articles to read on the 7th anniversary of September 11. I thought I'd just post a list of some of the better reads across the web:

First off, there is a wide variety of posts up at Redstate, all of which are excellent, but here's a taste:

Absentee has a great collection of 9/11 photos.

Jeff Emanuel gives us a great overview of the all-too-ironic New York Times article about William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist and Barack Obama booster, which was published on the day of the WTC attacks.

Dan MacLaughlin recounts his first hand experience of the attack on the World Trace Center.

Over at Townhall.com, Ann Coulter reminds us all of the score in Bush 7, Terrorists 0.

At National Review Online, Cliff May talks about the fact that Arab nations are helping to spread the belief abroad that the U.S. government either planned or directly implemented the attacks as an excuse to wage a new crusade. Victor Davis Hanson and James Robbins both discuss the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of our success in preventing further attacks: complacency.

Michelle Malkin has several incredible posts concerning the 9/11 attacks up on her blog - all worth reading.

7 years

2008-09-11T10:27:00.004-04:00

We all remember where we were when the news first broke. Today we remember what evil looks like, and thank God for those who refused to back down in fear or sorrow. We are thankful for the 7 years of peace on our own soil since that dark day, and we gather our strength for more years of diligence in our continued fight. We remind our politicians and leaders that this fight is far from over, and we expect our next president to remember that.

We cannot afford to forget this day, or that radical Islam is our enemy. We will NEVER forget.

A Guide to Celebrity Strays

2008-09-11T08:47:00.004-04:00

Thank goodness for Matt Damon. If he hadn't had the courage to go on national television and talk about things that he is completely unqualified to discuss, some of us might have made the fatal mistake of actually voting for McCain-Palin. But now, thankfully, he has made it known that he "knows nothing about" Sarah Palin. What would we do without celebrities?

(By now you have probably sensed the sarcasm in my tone. I've often allowed these celebrity forays into politics to get under my skin. Screaming at the television or computer screen, and elevating my blood pressure to dangerous levels was the usual response. Fortunately, I have put my experience in this matter to good use, and will now suggest a method for dealing with the difficult issue of "celebrity strays.")

As consumers, we are responsible for the care and nurturing of our celebrities. Often times, we forget that those who are blessed with true artistic talent are often, shall we say, lacking, in the capacity for rational thought. The typical celebrity lifestyle often compounds the effects of this condition. Very few of them live in anything that remotely resembles what most of us know as the "real world", so our approach to the care and nurture of the celebrity must be carefully considered in light of these factors.

When a celebrity strays into the world of politics, we often simply roll our eyes and go about our day. However, we must realize that it is a serious condition, almost certainly brought about by our own actions. Our elevation of entertainers to the status of demi-gods is the most common cause of celebrity strays. Unfortunately, this trend is unlikely to be reversed in the immediate future, so it's important to know how to deal with this phenomenon whenever it occurs. The first step is to remember that the celebrity exists, first and foremost, for your entertainment.

It's actually quite entertaining to watch celebrities, with such serious looks on their faces, talking about politics and policy like they have the slightest clue about life outside of Hollywood. It really is amusing to realize that they honestly think we would value their opinions on anything other than, well, entertainment. It's OK, though - in most cases one is best served by just letting them go on thinking that we do care, so they keep making entertaining movies and don't go stomping off to Canada once they realize we only pay attention to them when they're saying what the script tells them to say.

In other words, one must recognize that the life experience of the average celebrity has given them the real-world judgement and understanding of a 5-year-old. Nod in approval and say things like, "That's very good, Matthew!", and, "Such big words you're using, and all by yourself!"

Of course, there are times when this approach does nothing but inflate the celebrity's sense of self importance, and such circumstances call for a firm, but loving hand. If the celebrity continues to abuse his position in society, he must lovingly be reminded of his status as mere entertainment. As Leo DiCaprio, as Howard Hughes, says to Cate Blanchet, as Katherine Hepburn, in one of my favorite movies, The Aviator, "You are a movie star - nothing more!" It's important to be forceful, so the celeb knows you mean business, but with compassion and a sincere since of responsibility for having contributed to their condition.

The problem of stray celebrities is more than likely only going to get worse in the coming weeks and months leading up to a very important election. Some, like Susan Sarandon and Oprah, are more irritating than others, but all have the potential to cause indigestion and hypertension in the average individual. Please, remember that you are responsible for your celebrities, and only you have the ability to bring them back home. The power lies with you (use the remote, stupid).

Church & Statism

2008-09-10T15:39:00.002-04:00

R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite modern theologians, has an excellent article in his latest version of Tabletalk Magazine about why Christians should be opposed to the ever growing size and supremacy of government. It's long been clear that this nation has moved beyond mere "separation of church and state", into a complete separation of government from God. Most today would probably argue that this is as it should be, but it certainly is not what was intended by the founding fathers.

"...initially both the church and the state were seen as entities ordained by God and subject to His governance. In that sense, the state was considered to be an entity that was “under God.” What has happened in the past few decades is the obfuscation of this original distinction between church and state, so that today the language we hear of separation of church and state, when carefully exegeted, communicates the idea of the separation of the state from God. In this sense, it’s not merely that the state declares independence from the church, it also declares independence from God and presumes itself to rule with autonomy.

The whole idea of a nation under God has been challenged again and again, and we have seen the exponential growth of government in our land, particularly the federal government, so that the government now virtually engulfs all of life...Where we have seen the largest measure of the loss of liberty is with respect to the function of the church. Though the church is still somewhat tolerated in America (in a way it was not tolerated in Mao’s Red China and under Stalin), it is tolerated only when it remains outside of the public square. In other words, the church has been relegated to a status not unlike that given to the native Americans, where the tribes were allowed to continue to exist as long as they functioned safely on a reservation, outside of any significant influence on the government. So although the church has not been banished completely by the statism that has emerged in America, it has been effectively banished from the public square.

Throughout the history of the Christian church, Christianity has always stood over against all forms of statism. Statism is the natural and ultimate enemy to Christianity because it involves a usurpation of the reign of God."

Nanny-Statism has become the norm in America, and liberals would have it become all-encompassing. Let the government take care of your every need. Who needs freedom anyway? It's time we put a stop to this nonsense, and start taking care of ourselves and our neighbors. If Christians will stand up and do a better job of taking care of each other and those in need, we wouldn't have any reason to let the government do it (or try to do it...badly). God is our provider - not government.

They Really Are Pathetic

2008-09-10T12:49:00.003-04:00

One more reason why I will not be surprised when Obama supporters begin insisting that their messiah's speeches be printed only in red ink - From Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN):

"I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, um, that the parties have differences, but if you want Change, but if you want change, you want the Democratic party, uh, Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus who our, uh, minister prayed about, uh, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Ohhhhhhhhhh. So, that's what community organizers do...walking on water, turning water into wine, healing sick people, being raised from the dead. I'm so glad congressman Cohen cleared that up for us! Who knew we had a Jewish expert on New Testament theology in the House?

The Highest Form of Flattery

2008-09-10T11:55:00.003-04:00

Obama has given more evidence that Sarah Palin's jabs in her incredible convention speech hit a nerve. Apparently, after seeing how successful and popular Palin's clever comments were, Obama thought he'd give it a try.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

What a classy guy. Please keep this up, Barry - and let me know how this new strategy of name-calling works out for ya. It's gotta help win over those disaffected Clinton supporters. You are either incredibly stupid (we know you went to Harvard, so probably not the case), or remarkable arrogant. Given your record to date, I'd go with the latter.

Now It's Personal

2008-09-08T13:31:00.007-04:00

Barack Obama:

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

Such calculation. Note the extremely vague, but obligatory reference to "values and morals", which is supposed to convince us that he is in a terrible, but necessary moral conundrum.

I would, however, like to state that my own particular "punishment" turned 10 years old 2 weeks ago. If Obama understood the sovereignty of God, then he might realize that sometimes what seems like the worst possible circumstance can be turned into the greatest event of your life. ALL THINGS work together for the good of those who love the Lord. If what resulted from our making the difficult choice of life, after a lapse in judgement at the age of 18, was indeed a punishment...well then, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."

I suppose this explains my hostility towards the establishment of abortion on demand, but hindsight is a frightening thing when I realize how easy it would've been to make the wrong choice. The bottom line is that it shouldn't even be a choice. I now have proof that life is too precious to be treated with such disdain.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way. I'm not trying to boast about the fact that we were able to make the right choice in a difficult situation, and I would never condemn anyone who has been down the other road. It was only by God's grace that we were able to do what we did. I will, however, condemn those who have worked to make abortion the form of birth control that it has become, creating a so-called easy way out for people in desperate situations.

This also ties in to my previous post concerning evangelicals and the situation with Bristol Palin. My own similar experience with fellow believers gave me confidence that the base would stand by the Palins during this difficult time, despite the naive and ignorant hopes of the liberal media.

Palin and The Media

2008-09-08T08:38:00.003-04:00

As issues at the office have kept me away from the blogosphere for the last week or so, I've been literally itching to get back to the keyboard and talk about what's going on in the presidential race. The treatment of Governor Palin by the mainstream press has been nothing short of dispicable, to say nothing of the treatment she's getting from our illustrious opponents on the left side of the web. It really is quite remarkable to see the hypocrisy in action as these luminaries of liberal thought quake in the shadow of a woman who is more man than any of them will ever be.

Liberals, and lefty feminists in particular, are rightly terrified of Sarah Palin and what she represents. A conservative woman who is a natural leader, an excellent speaker, a successful and popular executive in state government, and she's *gasp* attractive! And let's not forget that she has more experience running a government than their pathetic would-be messiah. But the most threatening thing of all for those on the left, who have supposedly been the champions of women's issues for so long, is that she does all of this while successfully raising a large family. She didn't let her career determine how many children she should have, and didn't exercise her "right" to end any of those pregnancies which might have hampered her career. She even chose to give birth to a child she knew would have Down Sydrome - a choice that completely baffles, and no doubt angers those who fight so hard for the ability to murder unborn children.

It really is quite amusing to see the press and everyone else on the left suggesting that Sarah Palin should stay home and tend to her family. After all, we all know that a woman's place is in the kitchen...are we in some kind of political bizzaro world? I really see this backfiring on the media and their client, the Obama campaign. Sarah Palin represents the best side of American politics: ordinary men and women, who have families and struggle with the same problems that every other American faces, going to Washington to represent their peers. This is what our government was supposed to be. Instead, we have a capital full of lawyers and career politicians who don't live in everyday America, and represent only themselves. Barack Obama is a prime example.

This "scandal" concerning Bristol Palin has revealed a good deal about the media, and the left in general. Apart from their obvious bias towards Obama, and any Democrat candidate, it has revealed a lot about how liberals in the media view evangelicals. There is a very good reason that this story has been plastered on every newspaper, magazine, and television screen ever since it was revealed that Bristol was pregnant. You see, liberals tend to see conservative evangelicals as Bible-thumping agents of condemnation and judgement. They reveal their complete lack of knowledge concerning true Christianity when they push this story in the hopes that we prudish, holier-than-thou Jesus freaks will turn on Palin. They honestly believe that we will do just that, simply because Palin has a daughter that hasn't lived up to the standards of the Bible. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there are many so-called Christians who act in this way, but no true believer can do anything but sympathize with the Palins in this situation.

So, here's a little lesson for those in the media and on the left, trying to figure out why this scandal has done nothing but solidify Palin's support among evangelicals. True Christians realize that every man and woman since Adam and Eve, save One, have fallen short of God's standards. The fact that we still try to live up to the law of God is a result of our relationship with Christ, not the means to such a relationship. No true Christian would ever do anything but pray for this family in a very difficult situation, and admire their courage and effectiveness as parents in raising a daughter who made the choice to give life to her child.

But please, by all means, continue spewing this garbage at the Palins. You are doing nothing more than rallying the average American to their cause. If this is what happens when ordinary, outside-the-beltway people try to do what the founding fathers intended, then you do us all a service by awakening the public to the brokenness of our system.

Weekend Round-up

2008-09-02T08:30:00.003-04:00

After a nice, quiet Labor Day weekend, I thought I'd take a look at the state of affairs within the political realm:

What a surprise. John McCain's sordid love affair with the mainstream press is on the rocks. We all knew this was coming when he took the nomination. The media, whom McCain once referred to as his 'base', where only enamored with the Arizona Senator as long as he was undermining his own party, or criticising the conservative base. This is what turned so many of the conservative faithful away from McCain's candidacy. What's so surprising is how shocked the McCain camp seems to be at this startlingly predictable turn of events.

Lefty bloggers are having such fun over at the Daily Kos over revelations that Governor Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Before Gov. Palin revealed this information about her daughter, however, they stooped about as low as I've ever seen anyone go. Rumors have been flying around the left side of the internet, accusing Gov. Palin of faking her last pregnancy - you know, the one where she baffled the liberal establishment by actually choosing to have her baby with Down Syndrome, rather than euthanize it. These geniuses would have us believe that the baby actually belongs to Palin's daughter. That's right: they're using a baby with Down Syndrome to score political points. The Obama campaign has been quick to disavow such dispicable slime in public, while campaign staffers delightedly forward the story to anyone they can. The biggest crime of all, is that many in the mainstream press are giving this story attention, despite the lack of credible evidence. The McCain camp did well to release the info about Bristol's pregnancy immediately, and as the Politico points out, this may end up helping people identify with Palin as the only one in this race who is in touch with real, everyday Americans and their problems.

While the Kos-Kids continue to prove my theory about the make-up of the American Left, we have more proof that those peace-loving champions of free speech and harmony are nothing more than immature hypocrites. The Connecticut delegation to the Republican National Convention was attacked by a group of liberal protestors while trying to enter the Xcel Center. The delegates were spat upon, and had clorox thrown on them, by these luminaries of the American Left. Funny, I don't remember ever hearing about conservatives doing things like this over a difference of political opinion.

More on Palin

2008-08-30T16:22:00.003-04:00

We're already beginning to see the Democrat response to McCain's running mate. The argument, as everyone anticipated, is that she's too inexperienced. Let me just say that I sincerely hope the Obama team continues down this path. It's difficult to say the word 'inexperience' without Barack Obama's name falling out right behind it. The irony is thick.

Please, Mr. Axelrod, keep talking about Sarah Palin's experience. Even your average ignorant voter will realize that, though she's been in politics for a relatively short time, the fact that she's been the governor of the largest state in the union for even 2 years gives her more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. There's a reason very few senators make it to the White House - most of them have never had to run anything, much less the largest economy, military, and government bureacracy on the face of the planet.

McCain-Palin

2008-08-29T10:43:00.004-04:00

Fox News is now confirming, via "sources within the McCain camp", that Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, has been chosen as John McCain's running mate. If this is indeed the case, then I have to hand it to McCain. This came out of nowhere...very few were giving Palin any chance as late as yesterday evening, and the blogosphere has been literally buzzing all morning. The cable news networks have been totally distracted from Obama's speech last night, and every one of them is talking about this incredible move by McCain.

I love this pick! Palin ticks all the boxes - the timing and out-of-left-field nature of this choice seriously upstages Obama when he was getting very good coverage after the speech, she helps McCain appeal to many of Hillary's discouraged supporters by simply being female, she will help to reassure the conservative base that they will be represented on this ticket, she's young, has (limited, but still more than Obama and Biden combined) executive experience as governor, and she's pretty much got to be the hottest VP ever!

This pick will energize the base, myself included, as no other choice could have done. She's relatively unknown, but the more conservatives get to know her, the more they will love her. Here's a little bit from her Wikipedia bio:

She's married to Todd, a native Yup'ik Eskimo, and one of her sons is about to be deployed to Iraq. She also has 3 daughters, and recently gave birth to another son who has Downs Syndrome.

She loves to hunt, ice-fish, snomobile, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

She helped expose and rid Alaska's government of corrupt, pork-fat politicians within her own party.

She is a stong supporter of drilling in ANWR, and is staunchly pro-life.

This is very good news for conservatives and John McCain. I can't wait to see what happens to Obama's little "bump" in the polls.

The Obama Speech

2008-08-29T08:22:00.003-04:00

What an inspiring, well-delivered articulation of Jimmy Carter's policies. Obama continues to impress with his ability to make college kids and celebrities weep with eloquent references to socialist and populist policies that they think the rest of America will embrace now that they have a handsome, charismatic "framer" for their ideas.

And let's not forget the media - they were cheering just as loudly as the teenie-boppers. Oh, I'm sure we'll see them shouting and clapping during John McCain's acceptance speech as well. They are, after all, professional journalists. (Wait...no, I wouldn't start holding your breath just yet). For those who couldn't bear to listen to his drivel, continuously interupted by his adoring worshippers, the gist of his speech was as follows:

"Tired of paying a lot for gas? Don't want to continue paying your mortgage? Sick of having to pay for the best healthcare system in the world? Angry about corporations making a profit? Sick of people trying to limit your right to use abortion as birth-control? Don't have the stomach to finish a war against evil?

Well, just elect me and it'll all go away! I am, after all, the messiah. See how inspiring my voice sounds when I say everything really loud? It doesn't matter how I plan to accomplish any of this. We all know the government can solve all of these problems for us. It won't even really affect most of you out there tonight. Most of you either don't pay any taxes at all, or are rich enough that the highest tax increase in history wouldn't even make a dent. The only people we'll stick it to are small business owners and people who work for a living - and they're all Republicans anyway!

So, vote for me and we'll all return to the days of Jimmy Carter! Oh, and McCain sucks and is really just George Bush in a whiter, cancer-ridden costume...seriously.

YESWECAAAAN!"

This Week in Politics

2008-08-28T14:12:00.005-04:00

Well, blogging time took a hit over the last couple of weeks as I struggled to meet a deadline at the day job. Of course, as is usually the case, all that work and stress came to a rather anti-climactic end as the deadline was pushed back anyway. So I thought I'd take a look at what I wasn't able to comment on over the last few days:

First of all, The One's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate was excellent news for John McCain and the GOP. Biden has been on the record saying what a poor president Obama would make - although "clean and articulate, for a black guy" - and the guy is a walking gaffe machine. This also opens the door for McCain to really help himself with his VP pick. The Democratic ticket has absolutely no executive experience whatsoever - two senators who have never run a local or state government, or even a business for pete's sake! Obama's only experience in anything outside of politics was as a "community organizer" - I think we all know what that really means.

The Democratic Convention has also provided plenty of entertainment for those of us on the other side of things. His Supreme Obamaness has apparently built a temple to himself at Invesco Field, where adoring worshippers will bow before his mighty...er, basketball skills?, fitness? cleanliness? Rumor has it that his ascension to the presidency will finally occur. He certainly seems to think that he is owed the job. We're now getting word that a full scale replica of Air Force One will also be part of the show tonight. Oh, please let this be true! This man's arrogance truly is a sight to behold.

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi had no idea that the church she claims to be a member of was so serious about their opposition to abortion. She received a pretty harsh, but appropriate lesson in Catholic theology earlier this week. You know, there's a reason the Dems have stayed away from talking about faith in recent years...it hasn't worked out real well for any of them lately either.

And finally, it looks like we'll find out who McCain's VP will be either later this evening or tomorrow. I can't decide who I'd like to see as VP. Redstate has endorsed Eric Cantor, and I'd certainly be pleased with him as a true conservative and excellent attack dog against Obama/Biden, but he doesn't really take advantage of the experience issue. I think Pawlenty and Romney would also be good choices as both have executive experience, but both also come with their own problems. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a name that has popped up around the blogosphere today, but she's not pro-life, and that is a deal-breaker for a lot of folks.

I would love to see the name "leaked" on the same night as Obama's sermon/ascension. This could be very entertaining. Unfortunately, college football starts tonight with South Carolina v. N.C. State, so I'll have read about this stuff tomorrow.

WTC 7

2008-08-26T08:48:00.004-04:00

As a structural engineer, I've received a lot of questions from friends and relatives about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers back on 9/11. I never was convinced by any of the arguments put forth by conspiracy theorists concerning the collapse of the buildings. The report released by the NIST provided a perfectly legitimate explanation for the collapse of the towers.

The attack occured while I was still in engineering school, so I could hardly have called myself an expert at the time. However, disregarding any of the expertise I have gained in the years that followed as a practicing engineer, I have yet to read from any legitimate expert on structural engineering, construction, demolition, or any other related field who agreed with any of the claims of the "truthers." That, in itself, made me automatically suspicious of any claims for conspiracy. Oh sure, there have been plenty of folks with Ph.D.'s behind their names claiming to have "proven" that the collapse of the towers had to have been caused by controlled demolition explosives, but dig a little deeper and you'll find that these "experts" are college professors with knowledge about many valuable things...cold fusion, economics...but certainly not structural engineering or construction.

We now have an official report from NIST on the collapse of WTC 7, the smaller building adjacent to the two towers. This building sustained damage from the collapse of the twin towers, and eventually experienced a catastrophic failure itself. Many of those behind the "President Bush Authorized and Planned 9/11" movement pointed to the collapse of this building, which was not directly damaged by either plane, as an indication that foul play was involved. After reading through a synopsis of the report and looking at the engineers' methods of analysis and creation of the original structure's model, I see nothing to cause suspicion.

In a nutshell, falling debris from the collapse of the adjacent towers ignited fires on at least 10 floors within the WTC 7 structure. Because of the fact that the original collapse disabled the water main, the sprinkler systems in WTC 7 did not function, causing some of these fires to burn uncontrolled for up to 7 hours. Despite what many of our esteemed "experts" would have you think, uncontrolled office fires can produce enough heat to cause significant thermal expansion within long-span floor framing systems. (These fires burned between 570 and 1100 F, temperatures which would have certainly caused significant thermal expansion, and even a reduction in strength and stiffness at the upper range). Most beam-to-column connections are not designed to resist the lateral loads induced by thermal expansion, so a failure occured at one of the critical columns, causing a progressive collapse. This link answers many of the questions raised by some of our previously mentioned conspiracy theorists.

That's not to say that there aren't some issues I'd like to investigate further. As mentioned in the report, this is the first known case of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building. That's a pretty big development for structural engineers, as we're generally more concerned with wind, earthquakes, and typical service loads. It'll be interesting to see what changes are made in the building codes over the next few years to address this issue.

Liberals & Conservatives: All about maturity

2008-08-26T08:28:00.008-04:00

I haven't had much time lately to check out things in the political realm, but I have to comment on the difference between liberal and conservative activists. You very rarely see conservative protestors showing their rear ends in truly childish fashion, as we've already seen in Denver after one day of the Democratic Convention, but that's something that's fairly common among the more leftward leaning groups. Why is it that conservatives tend to keep their rear ends to themselves?

I have a number of theories, but I believe this may have something to do with another of my observations concerning liberal activists. One only need look at the typical professions and/or life stations occupied by those of the liberal persuasion to find a rather obvious trend. Let's see, we have college professors, college students and recent graduates, and celebrities. In other words, people who have had very little exposure to life in the real world. Liberal ideology works very well in the classroom, and generally is met with either apathy or idealistic naivete by students who have yet to try and live on their own. So college profs are usually insulated from any kind of legitimate challenge to their ideas, and certainly rarely need to actually put them into practice.

Celebs are probably the easiest example to explain. They live in a world completely isolated from the problems we ordinary men and women face. Movie stars play make-believe all day, so it's not all that difficult to begin actually believing that we can just throw out all the oil and *poof* ourselves up some alternative fuel technology.

So, why is it that liberals tend to pitch obscenity-filled tantrums when they don't get their way? Sure, most conservatives have actual jobs and families that occupy the time that could otherwise be spent so valuably. But, I'd say it has something to do with the maturity that comes through years of putting others before oneself. It's no surprise that most people who spend enough time in the real world become more conservative over time. You begin to see that all those idealistic solutions to the world's problems have been tried and tried for thousands of years, all with the same result.

Head over and check out more of these hilarious photos from absentee's Flickr page.

Birthday Girl

2008-08-20T10:48:00.002-04:00

Blogging has been light this week due to a deadline at the office, but I have to post a Happy Birthday wish to my now 10-year-old daughter. I cannot believe it's been 10 years since I first laid eyes on BabySue. Happy Birthday, Tay!

2008 Phelps Games

2008-08-19T12:41:00.003-04:00

I've really enjoyed the olympics this time around. I didn't think I would. Most of the 'sports' are incredibly lame when you think about it, but for some reason I just can't stop watching women's handball and the hardcore jocks of China's badminton program. I fully intended to do my best to ignore the games this time around - partly because of the Chi-Coms, but also because the olympic committee seems intent on eliminating all sports that American athletes dominate.

But every night when we go off to bed, I lay there trying to read my book in peace, and all I can hear in the background is Bob Costas humping Michael Phelps' leg. I'm pretty sure NBC has filed a petition to rename our nation's capital after the guy - just so they can keep saying his name after the games are over. It's no wonder NBC are seriously worried about their ratings now that Phelps is done dominating the pool. Track and field will take the spotlight now, but the Americans can't keep up with the Jamaicans - no one can. There must be something in the weed...er, water...down there.

The Saddleback Forum

2008-08-18T08:47:00.004-04:00

First of all, let me say that my fears about the Saddleback forum were for the most part unrealized. I think, all things considered, that was about as good as we could have expected from this kind of event. I want to say that I'm proud of Rick Warren for not avoiding the issue of abortion, and Obama's answer to the abortion question was very revealing for any pro-life voter.

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

Obama: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade...[several minutes of posturing and dancing around any actual answer to the question]...I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe V. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually...[bold-faced lie about making the Democrat Party platform less radical on abortion and typical liberal drivel about keeping abortion 'rare']..."

Thank you, Pastor Warren, for forcing the Obamessiah into revealing his atypical, ultra-liberal-wanting-to-win-a-national-election abortion stance: "I am personally against abortion, but don't have the courage to stand against it." What if William Wilberforce had taken the same approach to slavery? Obama's answer to this question reveals how out of touch he is with the evengelical community on a very important issue.

Visitors From La-La Land

2008-08-15T13:09:00.006-04:00

You gotta love old hippie singers. It seems to me that whenever God decides to grant someone musical or artistic talent, he throws something else in their psyche a little bit "off", just to make it fair. I'm not one to question the Maker, but it really makes it difficult for me to enjoy some of their genuinely good music when they can't keep their mouths shut about stuff outside of their own little fantasy land.

Apparently Jackson Brown joined the rest of us in the real world (well, Los Angeles, anyway) just long enough to sue John McCain for using one of his songs in a commercial. That's very mature. "I don't like you, so you can't play my song! Nanner-nanner-nanner!" I thought these people were supposed to be the champions of tolerance and freedom of expression?

Oh, right. That's only for people who agree with them.

More on Saddleback

2008-08-15T09:12:00.003-04:00

I've really been trying to reserve judgement for the much anticipated Saddleback forum until after it takes place. For those of us who have been hoping and praying that Rick Warren would use this high-profile event to advance the Kingdom will not have our confidence boosted by this news.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama camp insisted on Faith In Public Life being included in the process as a condition for his participation. They certainly represent his version of Christianity. I'm really trying to give Warren the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm becoming less optimistic by the day.

Evangelicals & Politics

2008-08-15T08:16:00.003-04:00

There is a very interesting study out by the Barna Group concerning voters and their presidential candidate preferences. I recommend that you read the entire study, as it gives some very good insight into why people are supporting their candidate of choice. But the most interesting aspect of the study is the fact that the Barna Group shows McCain with a huge lead (61%-17%) over Obama among evangelicals. Now this certainly doesn't play into the narrative we've been getting from many media outlets over the last few months. I've read countless articles about Obama's supposedly strong support among "evangelicals", but as this study points out, very few surveys bother to determine whether their subjects are truly evangelical.

One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

This certainly ties in to something I wrote about several weeks ago, when I noted a Pew survey which showed that nearly 60% of evangelicals believed that "many religions lead to eternal life." So, if only 8% of the adult population in this country qualifies for Barna's standard of evangelicalism, what kind of standards are they using?

"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."

"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

Non-evangelical born again Christians meet the born again criteria described above, but not the evangelical criteria.

Nearly half the people in this country think of themselves as Christians. But if only 8% can qualify as evangelical by meeting the very basic requirements listed above, which pretty much represent the basic definition of Christianity, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Rick Warren Goes to Washington

2008-08-13T12:02:00.005-04:00

Okay, so it's more like Washington comes to Rick Warren, but you get the idea. I wrote a while back about the two presidential candidates' upcoming appearance at Saddleback. In that post, I wondered whether Rick Warren would have the courage to ask difficult questions of the two candidates, especially concerning Obama's stance on abortion. Well, it looks like I'm not the only one wondering about these things.

Hunter has posted an open letter to Rick Warren over at Redstate, challenging him to force Obama to explain his support for partial birth abortions, his efforts to defeat the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and his support for abortion on demand in general. I realize that the Saddleback forum is supposed to focus on other things like poverty and HIV/AIDS, issues that Warren has been championing within the church for years. But I would have to argue that the issue of infant murder within our own nation is of more importance right now.

In fact, as I pointed out in my previous post, Rick Warren openly encouraged pastors and other leaders to support President Bush in 2004 for this and other reasons. I'm a little confused as to why he doesn't seem to be taking the same stand in this election.

Of course, I'd also love to see Pastor Warren challenge Obama on his embrace of liberal theology and the social gospel, asking questions that would reveal his selective affinity for the red letters over those other inconvenient "obscure passages", but that would probably be asking too much.

He's Back...

2008-08-13T08:45:00.002-04:00

It sounds like AM 940 has decided on a permanent host to take over the reigns of the morning talk show. According to the commercials I've been hearing on the radio each morning, the now infamous Chris Kroc, disrespecter of elders and thorn in Elaine Lucas' prodigious side, will bring his abrasive brand of commentary to Macon listeners in the weeks to come. As I said in my earlier post, his style understandably rubs some people the wrong way - especially the older batch of listeners - and he certainly has a knack for stirring the pot. But whether you like him or not, you have to agree that the morning show is about to become very interesting.

Unfortunately, this means the end of Erick's run on the show. His unique insight into the political world, both local and national, will be missed. I hope he'll continue to guest host from time to time.

By the way, it looks like Kroc will have some competition. Kenny Burgamy and Charles Richardson are getting back into the world of morning radio over on 100.9 FM.

Oxymoron

2008-08-13T08:13:00.001-04:00

Iowa "Republican" Backs Barack Obama.

Oh, Saxby...

2008-08-12T09:15:00.002-04:00

I'm a big supporter of Saxby Chambliss. I may not always agree with him on every issue, but then there are very few politicians who qualify for that high honor, and on the whole I believe he's the right guy for Georgia. He's also a genuinely good guy, and I'll continue to work for his election, which should be a foregone conclusion given his popularity within the state. I do, however, have to lament the timing of his latest efforts at bipartisanship.

Why is it that every time we get a "Gang of ___" conservatives get screwed? Republicans are obviously very poor negotiators, because these bipartisan collaborations always end up with our side surrendering everything for very little in return. The bill proposed by this latest Gang of 10 is no different. Not only does its timing completely undermine the courageous efforts of the House GOP in demanding real solutions NOW, it simply doesn't do enough to provide immediate, comprehensive solutions to our dependence on foreign oil. There is far too much emphasis on funding for 'alternative fuels' research, and far too little in the way of short-term solutions available to us NOW.

I won't get into the political suicide that this bill effectively accomplishes for Republicans. That's been covered, and the senators are getting hammered, over at Redstate and other places for the last few days. But the real world solutions this bill is supposed to offer are simply not good enough. As Erick and others have said, we would be much better off simply allowing the ban of offshore drilling to expire, allowing us to drill everywhere.

Where is Jim Marshall?

2008-08-11T15:30:00.008-04:00

I'm a little confused. Our allegedly conservative Democrat congressman, Jim Marshall, claims to support exploration for domestic energy sources. And yet, we're now into the second week of the energy protest in the House, led by two of our truly conservative Georgia congressmen, and Rep. Marshall is still on vacation. Imagine the incredible message that would be sent to the Democratic leadership, as well as the voters of the 8th district of Georgia, if he were to cross this party line and join the demand for a vote on energy exploration.

But Rep. Marshall, by promising to vote for offshore drilling if given the chance, while simultaneously refusing to support multiple efforts to bring such votes to the floor, illustrates exactly why the voters in our district can no longer afford to be represented by anything other than a true conservative. We have allowed the charade to continue for far too long. Selectively casting "conservative" votes from behind the liberal agenda of his own party's leadership is not the kind of representation this district deserves.

You can bet that Rick Goddard would be in Washington right now, demanding that the views of his constituents be heard, instead of hoping that this all just goes away. Help the conservative 8th district secure conservative representation by contributing to Rick Goddard right now.

God wants this mess cleaned up!

2008-08-08T08:37:00.006-04:00

I'm no fan of Joel Osteen. The whole "God wants me to be rich" thing is just plain wrong, and as far as I'm concerned, this guy qualifies as a preacher of another gospel. So when I first read about his wife's little run-in with a flight attendant, I was somewhat amused. Apparently, she had a little hissy fit when the attendant didn't clean up her beverage spill quickly enough.

It's easy to see how someone under the impression that the Creator of the universe owes them earthly wealth could come to the conclusion that mere mortals owe them their undivided attention. But as much as I dislike what the Osteens represent, I really can't spare too much sympathy for the money-grubbing flight attendant who thinks she's entitled to 10% of Victoria Osteen's net worth, just because she had to put up with a tantrum. This woman claims to have experienced depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (uh-huh, the same thing that soldiers go through after, you know, almost dying) as well as a "loss of her faith" after witnessing Mrs. Osteen's unbridled fury.

Of course, the Osteen's could have their lawyer argue that anyone who claims to have "lost their faith" as a result of something Mrs. Osteen did never actually had any faith in anything other than Mrs. Osteen. They could also point out that true saving faith cannot, in fact, be "lost" - but then that would require some knowledge of theology...

Socialism

2008-08-05T08:38:00.003-04:00

No wonder he's so worshipped by the hardcore left. The junior senator from Illinois has decided that we middle and lower class citizens need another stimulus check to help offset the rising cost of gasoline. Let's forget, for a moment, that Obama is on the record as supporting high gas prices as a way to force us from our 'national addiction' to oil, and look, instead, at this latest position he's decided to espouse. By now we all know that the few positions he actually takes are not to be viewed as 'permanent', but subject to change at the request of conservative critics.

I'm in favor of what President Bush did this past spring - putting tax money back into the hands of taxpayers is always a good thing. But what Obama has proposed is, well, basically it's theft. He's decided on the classic populist play of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. He's actually proposing that the government take money from the profits of oil companies and give it to us poor folks. Now, I'd love to get a $1000 check, but not at the expense of seeing this nation reduced to socialism. Our current tax code is already as close as you can get to redistribution of wealth*, but this is blatant, outright socialism.

Of course, the ignorant voter just loves this stuff. They have no idea that most of the stockholders in major oil companies like Exxon-Mobile are ordinary, middle class citizens just like them. They're also totally oblivious to the fact that companies like Google, Microsoft, and many others have profit margins much higher that any oil company. Where's the outrage against these companies making a killing, while we 'suffer' through a poor economy? Why is it that any company that takes advantage of capitalism and makes a profit is 'evil'?

The bottom line is that without rich folks, we po' folks wouldn't have jobs. Forcing companies to hand over more of their profits is not just un-American, it will only give said companies more reason to raise prices, lay off employees, or find a cheaper place to make their products (China), causing further recession. Barry Obama is nothing but an old-school Marxist in a shiny new package. His reasoning is no different from any other liberal - let the government (the most inept, inefficient bureaucracy ever known) solve all of our problems at the expense of freedom and individual responsibility.

*According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 10% of income earners in this country paid 72.7% of the total Federal Income Tax burden in 2005. That's right, of the total income taxes paid to the federal government, 72% of that amount was paid by only 10% of the total population. The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of the total tax burden, and the bottom 32% pay nothing. (The handy chart above courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.)

Another Flip from the Flop

2008-08-04T08:45:00.003-04:00

I awoke Sunday morning to the news that the Democrat party's flop has flipped yet again, and I knew it was going to be a good week. The look on his face as he stuttered his way through yet another tail-tucked admission of defeat to conservatism was utterly priceless. And so, it is with great satisfaction, that we add offshore drilling to the ever growing list of Obama's remarkably spineless concessions to conservative criticism.

I guess we conservatives were wrong about the Obama. Maybe when he claims to be a "new kind of politician", he means the kind that does whatever the base of the other party wants him to do...I kinda like that.

This is awesome...

2008-08-04T08:25:00.003-04:00

This was a brilliant move by the House GOP on Friday, and it continues today...

After already barely passing a resolution to give themselves a five week paid vacation, the Democrat Congress sneakily adjourned for the day in a craven attempt to escape Washington without a real vote to address America’s high gas prices and energy security. It also, they laughed, would silence Republican members from discussing America’s energy security and independence on the record after votes...

Led by Tom Price (Patriot-GA), Mike Pence (Patriot-IN), Lynn Westmoreland (Patriot-GA) and Henry Brown (Patriot-SC), what commenced as a spontaneous expression of American outrage at Speaker Pelosi and her party’s refusal to hold a vote and help working Americans, soon became a historic Republican “Speak-In” unmatched in U.S. House history...

And so it will continue!

House Republicans will be rearranging schedules, flying thousands of miles, and refusing to take a paid vacation. Instead, the GOP will take to the House floor every day to ensure the voice of Americans’ is heard; there is a vote to make our country energy secure and independent; and keep America the greatest nation on Earth!

Excellent work from our Georgia boys, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Price! Paul Broun, unsurprisingly, was also a part of the original 'revolution.' Funny, I don't see our 'conservative' congressman Jim Marshall on the list...

That's Calvinism...

2008-08-01T14:16:00.007-04:00

Last Sunday afternoon, I was flipping through the channels on television when I came across a preacher, seated behind a desk, looking fervently into the camera over his Bible. I paused long enough to hear him issue the following statement:

“The teaching that God has predestined some to eternal salvation, and others to eternal damnation, is a false doctrine. That’s Calvinism, my friend. You need to put your faith in Jesus Christ today…”

My daughter walked into the room just in time to hear me responding to the television thusly, “and you need to open that Bible of yours to the book of Romans every once in a while, because you’ve basically just called the Apostle Paul a false teacher…my friend”

It’s okay, my daughter is used to my frequent, and sometimes quite animated conversations with the television (it’s actually rather gratifying to berate and argue with something that hasn’t the ability to respond), so she just rolled her eyes and kept walking. Seriously, though, a little more than 10 years ago I would’ve had no problem with the preacher’s statement. Of course, 10 years ago I had done little actual reading of Scripture other than what I was forced to endure through church, school, and parental oversight.

Having been raised, for the most part, as a southern Baptist, predestination was “not in my Bible.” Thanks to the influence of friends and teachers with a Prebyterian background, I was drawn to the teachings of the Reformation. After years of stagnant spiritual growth, I was reading through the Scriptures with a renewed hunger for knowledge. I began to realize that my whole understanding of the process of salvation was flawed. I had been taught that salvation itself had to be such a life-changing and emotional experience, that I would always remember the very moment it had occurred.

I, personally, have never been able to pinpoint a specific date and time when I first relied on Christ for salvation. For many years, I thought that this was because it hadn’t worked the first time. So, I kept walking down the aisle, and kept trying to exercise that saving faith that I knew was necessary for salvation. Whenever I’d ‘backslide’, I’d say, “Well, I guess that last time didn’t take – time to ask Jesus into my heart again. Maybe this time he’ll come in.”

No doubt, our friendly preacher would tell me that I wasn’t really putting ALL of my faith in Christ – in other words, I wasn’t doing it right. Finally, I realized that my whole concept of God’s plan for my salvation was wrong. Salvation is not something I ‘do’ – it’s something Christ DID. It’s done. Over. I don’t ‘choose’ Christ, he already chose me. A lot of people have a serious problem with this view of salvation, but it’s mainly down to a flawed understanding of our condition before God.

Arminianism’s influence on American Christianity has helped to develop the idea that we take the initial step in the salvation process. We choose to have faith in Christ, our souls are regenerated, and we are justified before God as without sin. The problem, at least according to my reading of the New Testament, is that before Christ, we are “dead in our sin.” How is it possible for one who is truly dead, one who would never choose Christ on his own, to take the first step toward salvation? It isn’t.

Without some intervention by the Holy Spirit, we would never even know of our need for salvation. Since no one chooses Christ on his own, it follows logically that God is the one doing the choosing. It’s difficult to believe in the total sovereignty of God, His control over every minute detail of every person’s life, without recognizing that He, at some point, chooses who will become part of the elect. The eternal status of one’s soul is, after all, not exactly a ‘minute’ detail of most people’s lives. But logic isn’t what sold me on the doctrine of election. Paul took care of that:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Rom. 8:29,30

...who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. 2 Tim. 1:9

...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him, in love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will... Eph. 1:4,5

See also, Romans 9

Oh, and this guy too:

John 6:37-39
John 6:65

It may fly in the face of our own understanding of ‘free will’, but since when does God’s plan depend on our own understanding of anything? The Arminian view of salvation, however, also limits the work of Christ, and in that, I believe, it commits its most serious error. Let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and we do, in fact, have to choose Christ before we are saved. If that's the case, then what, exactly, did Christ's death accomplish? As far as I can tell, it gives us nothing more than the opportunity to be saved. According to this view, Christ's death on the cross did not pay the full price for our redemption. We have to finish the job. That doesn't sound like the Gospel of the New Testament to me. Once again, we're dependent on ourselves for salvation.

Thankfully, Christ's death did accomplish ALL that was necessary for our salvation. God is sovereign, and it’s a huge comfort to know that I, literally, can’t screw up my salvation. It’s a good thing, too, because I’d find a way…believe me.

Hunker Down Dawgs!

2008-08-01T12:21:00.004-04:00

Just 29 more days until the Bulldogs begin the 2008 college football season, and they'll start out as the #1 ranked team in the nation! This is pretty exciting, but it also really makes me nervous. It sounds like this is the predominant feeling among UGA fans, as there's a lot of pressure surrounding a spot at the top. It's going to be a severely stressful season, as the slightest slip-up could end up costing us big.

The SEC schedule is as monstrous as it's ever been, with away trips to LSU and Auburn, ranked 6 and 11 respectively, and a big-time grudge match with Florida, ranked #5. The schedule is made even tougher with a non-conference showdown at #16 Arizona State (some of us have been calling for the inclusion of more established non-conference opponents to help boost the schedule, so this is the answer...let's hope it doesn't backfire).

Overall, I think Georgia has what it takes to be in the top 2 come bowl time, even with a loss - as long as it's to one of the ranked teams. Georgia played some of the best football ever seen during the end of last season, so let's hope they keep it up!

Facebook

2008-07-31T13:04:00.002-04:00

Well, I finally joined up with Facebook, and I have to say it's pretty cool. I was able to link up to quite a few of my friends almost instantly - some that I hadn't seen in a long time. I'm really going to have to watch it, though. I spend way too much time on the internet already...and it looks like Facebook could open up a whole new world of web addiction.

Between this blog, the Wii, and now Facebook, I can see my productivity going the way of Mayor Reichert's attention span in the presence of The Obama.

Rob-uht Reich-uht

2008-07-31T08:56:00.006-04:00

I love the guy's accent - a typical southern Democrat - and I have no doubt Mayor Reichert is going to be very good for our city. But I have to address the Obama endorsement. I listened to an interview our mayor gave this morning on the local radio show, with Erick and Ron - Mr. Kroc has not been back, and couldn't help but notice that Mr. Reichert has a serious case of 'Chris Matthews Syndrome.' When asked, at the prompting of a listener, why the mayor has so enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama, his answer was pretty typical of most Obama supporters.

He was eeyuhn-spiiiiired!

No mention of what The Chosen One plans to do once elected, and not one thing about the specific policy positions he thinks Obama will support. But then that stuff's so boring, isn't it? Why would anyone want to know anything specific about Barack's plans for our nation? His following has become cult-like in every way. We are called to put our faith and trust in the Obamessiah's will for our lives...

I especially like the mayor's reference to JFK. He claimed that he hasn't been this inspired by a politician since Kennedy's "Ask not what you country can do for you..." speech. Ever since he heard that speech, he's been a loyal Democrat. It's more than a little ironic that the Democrat Party and it's nominee have adopted a philosophy that is completely at odds with such a statement. The vast majority of Democrats would love nothing more than to have us all completely dependent on government for our every need. Don't like paying for healthcare? Let the government provide it, and everything else while we're at it. That sounds a lot like "asking what your country can do for you."

Of course, someone has to pay for it all, and that's where the 'evil' rich folks come in. They're the ones who aren't supposed to "ask." It's no wonder none of his supporters will talk about his policies. They either don't have a clue as to what they are, or realize that they're the same policies that have failed time and again. Socialism doesn't work, and those of us who care enough to vote know it.

Chris Kroc'll Make You Jump!

2008-07-29T12:35:00.004-04:00

So all of Macon is in an uproar over that young fella that filled in for two days on our local morning talk radio program. I listen pretty regularly, at least for the 10 to 15 minutes it takes for me to get to the office every morning, so I caught a few excerpts of Chris Krok's now infamous tenure at the AM 940 microphone. His style was certainly a little abrasive and "in-your-face", although I must admit that I quite enjoyed his little run-in with Macon's very own Big Momma, Elaine Lucas.

One other councilman even called in to chastise Krok for showing such little respect for an elected official. Others have pointed out that it's only us young 'uns, with our lack of respect for our elders, that enjoyed the show. I would have to argue that a certain amount of deference should be shown toward people who 'serve' their community; but respect is something that must be earned over time, and Mrs. Lucas has had plenty of time to earn that respect during her tenure on the council...we'll just leave it at that. I will note, however, that as soon as Mrs. Lucas ran out of argument, she resorted to implications about the host's age.

In other news, the past two days have featured Ron and his guest-host du jour answering non-stop phone calls from people either complaining or rejoicing in the glory of Krok's performance. If nothing else, I've never heard the phone lines to the station this busy, so he's certainly stirred up interest in the show. As for this young 'un, I thought he was decent, though I prefer the inestimable Mr. Erickson.

Robbie Keane a Red (Updated)

2008-07-28T16:54:00.005-04:00

Liverpool have made their first major signing of the summer with the capture of lifelong LFC fan Robbie Keane from Tottenham Hotspur! I've been reading about the possibility of this move for several weeks, and I must say I'm very excited about the prospect of a Keane and Torres strike partnership. The diminutive Irish international has been a goalscoring machine throughout his career, and I can't wait to see him in the famous Red jersey.

Tottenham's chairman Daniel Levy is not *happy* with the way the transfer reportedly went down.

'I have already made my opinion clear on the nature of this transaction. I don't regard it as a transfer deal - that is something which happens between two clubs when they both agree to trade - this is very much an enforced sale, for which we have agreed a sum of £19million as compensation plus a potential further £1.3million in additional compensation.'

Apparently, once Robbie heard Liverpool were interested, he turned in his transfer request straight away. It's a pretty high fee, but he's also a proven goalscorer with a great deal of experience in the Premier League, and he's obviously passionate about playing for the Reds. He finished last season with 19 goals in all competitions for Tottenham, and became the first Spurs player to achieve double digits in the league for 6 consecutive seasons.

He's also captain of the Ireland national team, and Ireland's all-time leading scorer with 33 international goals in 81 games. Good on ya Rafa!

The Rush Effect

2008-07-28T08:57:00.005-04:00

Like him or not, it would be very difficult to deny that Rush Limbaugh has transformed the world of politics in America over the last two decades. I am one of the first generation of Rush Babies to enter the real world, and I am extremely grateful for the influence he had, and continues to have, on my understanding of conservative thought and practice. As I came of age in the era of Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh provided commentary on the events surrounding my life that was both entertaining and informative.

Much of the criticism he receives centers around his blend of entertainment and information. Most of us Rush Babies had at least one liberal college professor tell us that the Rush Limbaugh Show is nothing more than entertainment, and should never be taken seriously. Of course, to most liberals, no point of view that conflicts with their own should ever be taken seriously anyway. Condescension is often employed as a preemptive strike for those whose policy defence strategy is based less on common sense than on emotional or populist rhetoric.

But Rush has defied every detractor. His show has grown beyond anything else in the industry, (if only among us "bitter gun-toting religious fanatics") and he continues to redefine talk radio and inspire others to at least try to emulate his success. His influence on conservative thought and practice in America cannot be overstated, and his influence on young people continues to guard against the liberal indoctrination that occurs daily in our "screwls" and universities.

It's no wonder Democrats and the left are desparately trying to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. If nothing else, Rush - and his proud ideological offspring - can see this outrageous attempt at regulation of speech as the remarkable compliment that it is. Congratulations Rush...and thanks.

Also, head on over to Human Events where they're celebrating 20 years of the show with some great articles about "The Great One."

Brobama

2008-07-27T12:14:00.004-04:00

A certain British newspaper, which I will not link to, and do not read because of my support for a certain British football club, caught up with one of Barack's little brothers (well, technically half brother). Bernard Obama lives in Kenya where he runs a car parts store, but visits his mother, who lives in the UK, quite often. Bernard and Barack were born of the same Kenyan father, but by different mothers, and didn't actually meet until Bernard was around 17.

It would therefore be difficult to argue that Bernard reflects in any way on his older half-brother - besides, we all know that the Obama is the incarnation of Hope and Change, and cannot therefore be considered anything other than divine.

Bernard is a proud muslim, but we're not supposed to mention that word in the same sentence as His HopeChangefulness, so we'll leave that topic well enough alone. The Brobama is also a devoted Manchester United fan, and avid reader of The Sun*. Now, I could care less about his religion - that's between him and his Maker - but his exceptionally poor choice of football club, and alleged daily reading of such a sorry excuse for journalism is so egregious that it cannot do less than reflect poorly on his illustrious big bro...at least in my book. But then I was already pretty biased against the Obamessiah before I learned his brother was a dirty manc.

*The Sun, which is never to be named in the presence of a Liverpool fan, much less ever purchased or read, is still the subject of a boycott among any well-informed Red. This is due to the inexcusable coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool FC supporters in 1989. The newspaper's editor ran a completely false and unsubstantiated article on the front page of the rag, claiming that the LFC fans involved in the tragedy participated in horrible acts which will not be given the dignity of having been named on this site. The editor refuses to apologize for this remarkable smear to this day.

Must Read of the Day

2008-07-25T09:01:00.003-04:00

From the Times:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

...

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

Read the whole thing. It really is a clever little piece from our friends across the pond, and it lets us know that there are some in the media who have managed to maintain their composure, even in the very presence of His Highness, the Obamessiah.

Shocker...

2008-07-25T08:48:00.004-04:00

For anyone who somehow continues to doubt the liberal bias in the news media, well, just follow the money.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

The author also provides a handy chart containing the contributions made by "those who reported being employed by major media organizations."

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.