Sunday, August 24, 2008


Religion. The word by itself conjures up images in one's head based on one's background. When I wrote that word, religion, I had a mental picture of the black bible given to me as a child by the pastor at the 1st United Methodist Church. Other people may picture Christ on the cross, or the Virgin Mary, or the nun who hit their knuckles with a ruler in grade school. Other people think about religion and see only zealots and snake charmers. Still others see a waste of time, a black hole that conjures up no imagery whatsoever.

Liberal loons hate religion. They hate the fact that people have something to feel good about. As a certain progressive presidential candidate patronized, people "cling to" their religion. He said it like about people in depressed areas of Pennsylvania, I think in an attempt to show empathy for their plight, but he came off as an elitist. He made it sound like people are all drowning and will grab anything to survive. The subtext is that he views it as unnecessary - vote for him and you can quit clinging to religion. But a Harris Interactive Poll shows that 90% of people believe in God, so either there's a lot of bitter people in dire straights out there or not as many people are "clinging" to religion as some would have us believe. In times of trouble, people do turn to prayer for solace and comfort, and it's hard to find that a negative - unless you don't want people to have comfort, or don't want them to get it from God, but instead from some nanny-state entitlement.

The Founders established in this country freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, only a provision that the state can't mandate the religion people will follow. Henry VIII created the Church of England out of personal desperation; there would be no Church of America. America has survived on faith based capitalism for 232 years. Godless Soviet Communism died in less than 70. The monstrous Nazi regime lasted less than a decade. In the Ardennes in 1944, do you think God was in the foxholes with our men? I'll put a sawbuck down that they would tell you yes (Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame was a deeply religious man. His book Beyond Band Of Brothers goes into some detail about his beliefs.).

I'll close with a tale of divine intervention. In 1996 I was driving south out of Ft. Collins, Colorado in my 1984 Ford Tempo. I wasn't wearing my seat belt, and at the last red light at the edge of town, I was struck with a very powerful, specific sense of vulnerability. I've not felt anything like this before or since that afternoon, but on this day I had a vision of just how unprotected I was without my seat belt. I literally had chills run up and down my spine, I got goosebumps and I shivered. Almost compulsively, I fastened the seat belt and immediately the feeling went away. 20 minutes later I was in a head on collision with a small pickup truck that turned in front of me. The crash totalled both vehicles and sent the other driver to the hospital with multiple serious injuries. I walked away virtually unscathed, with only bruises on my hips and neck from the seat belt. The accident investigation unit, or AIU officer said that I most likely would have been killed had it not been for that seat belt. She was actually amazed that I was even able to stand under my own power.

Did God tell me to put the seat belt on? Was it Divine Intervention? I can offer no proof other than my own testimony. I believe without question that the urge to put on that seat belt came from outside of myself. The forcefulness of that feeling has never been duplicated in any situation since then, and I can't chalk it up to anything I can explain; nor can I believe, as skeptics will surely say, that it was a coincidence. Someone was looking out for me that day, and that's all I really need to know.

I will have upcoming blogs looking at the new religion the progressives have embraced, and why it has the capability to doom us all.

Question - have you experienced divine intervention in your life?

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Everyone Loves Ernie

Nancy Pelosi is up to no good again, and by that I mean spending time and effort on the wrong things, and showing some hypocrisy in the process.

Joey Cheek, American speed skater, is the founder of Team Darfur. Team Darfur is a group of athletes who are bringing attention to the plight of people suffering what some say is a carefully orchestrated genocide in the the African country of Sudan. Certainly it is a bad situation - over 200,000 people have died and over a million are homeless. Joey and a group of other non-competing athletes were planning on going to the Olympic games in Beijing to help spread awareness of the situation in Darfur. Less than 24 hours before his flight was to leave, his visa was revoked by the Chinese government. On his blog Cheek said "I find this very concerning because I believe that it is an effort to silence anyone who is even suspected of disagreeing with the Chinese government."

A couple of points: First, I'm sure what the implication is - does he think China is behind or supports the situation in Darfur? How exactly is he in disagreement with them on this issue? Second, China is a sovreign nation and their visas are issued and can be revoked at their discretion. If they don't want non-competing athletes there for the sole purpose of speaking out about human rights issues, so be it. Maybe this makes the freedoms we enjoy in America seem a little more free, no? Third, the Olympics are supposed to be a time to set aside politics and engage in the pure competition of sport. Now, everyone who watches is rooting for their nation, and victories in the games can have political overtones (1980 Lake Placid, anyone?) but for non-competing athletes to come for the express purpose of protesting is not, in my mind, in keeping with the spirit of the games. The 400+ members of team Darfur will disagree with me, but that's my stance. Lastly, the liberal left in America is still aghast that we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, which over the last 30 years has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, systematically tortured and raped thousands more and attacked two neighboring countries...yet they're eager for us to get involved in Darfur and to tell the Chinese who they should and should not let into their country? You can't have it both ways, and yet like on most other issues, they want to play both sides of the fence.

Now segue to Nancy Pelosi. After she heard about the revocation of Cheek's visa, she urged President Bush to intervene, saying that the actions was part of an "orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views." Hello? Pot and the kettle? This is coming from the same person who, the week before, refused to allow our elected representatives to vote on offshore drilling by turning off the lights in the senate chamber, shutting off the microphones, and running as fast as she could from Washington. Why did she do this? Well, I think it has something to do with denying individuals based on their political views.

There is some cause for celebration though. The book tour Pelosi fled Washington for was wildly unsuccessful. Her book "Know Your Power: A Message To America's Daughters" has not risen above a sales rank of 1333rd. It's worst ranking was 5226, and it currently is ranked the 3199th best selling book. Let's contrast that with Dick Morris' new book "Fleeced." It rose to number 5 on the best seller list, falling as low as 43rd and now is ranked 22nd. Even "Ernie - The Autobiography" written by Ernest Borgnine is currently ranked 969th. This means that, in terms of messages to America's daughters, America finds Ernest Borgnine's writing more relevant than Nancy Pelosi's. I know liberals think the average American is not very bright, but I think America got it right on this one!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has morphed into Eric Cartman. When she was being pressured to go to an up or down vote on the topic of energy strategy, rather than debate the topic she did the adult thing and turned off the lights and left the room.

The House Republicans issued an open letter to her (read the whole thing here). Here's an excerpt:

"In protest of you and your Democrat majority not allowing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, we and our House Republican colleagues were prepared to take to the floor on Friday, August 1, 2008, and speak to the nation. Rather than allowing that to happen you and your Democrat majority adjourned the House, turned off the television cameras, shut off the microphones and turned out the lights. Nearly 50 House Republicans remained on the floor of the House in defiance speaking to those citizens gathered in the galleries and to the media."

Is that what our elected officials have sunk to? They'll kill the power and run rather than face a conflict? No wonder the Dems want to get out of Iraq...they can't even stomach a debate in the halls of Congress!

Even George Stephanopoulos was tough on her in an interview (read the transcript at the end of the open letter). After asking her 4 times why she won't allow a vote and receiving non-answers, he finally just says "So you won't allow a vote." I particularly like this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker, you promised in your commitment book, A New Direction for America, let me show our viewers, you said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?

PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote, and they may get a vote. But I have tried, you know, we have serious policy issues in our country.

I completely agree. We do have serious policy issues in this country when one person can make unilateral decisions to keep our elected officials from doing their jobs.

In a final twist of irony, Pelosi scampered off to her 5 week vacation to promote her new book. Yes, that's right, rather than trying to help out her constituency, she is out trying to make herself some money. And what of the planet she's so desperate to save by not allowing us to use more fossil fuel? Apparently that matters little to her as she's traveling from Boston to Philadelphia to Miami to Michigan over the next few days. I guess carbon footprints only matter when they're not hers.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Will race be an issue? Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

One of the questions that the media has been throwing around is that is "will race be an issue?" in the coming election. Maybe not as much as people think. Pat Buchanan in an article "Whitey Need Not Apply" asserts that blacks are favoring Barack Obama over McCain 90% to 10%. While that certainly points to a bias, it's about the same percentage of blacks that voted for Al Gore in 2000. The bias is probably solidified by race, but can be traced to political party as well, and that should not surprise anyone.

If you read the rest of Buchanan's article, what is disturbing is the continuing trend of the left in America to continue to try to legislate a change in the dynamics of business. The group UNITY wants to have a forced number of racially diverse people in leadership positions in the media. That means anyone not white. They even go so far as to demand that the candidates be given the proper training for the leadership positions. Rather than hiring the most qualified candidate, which is how hiring should be done, they want to place someone in the role and then train them. Isn't that like putting someone on the Olympic team and entering them in 100 yard dash before knowing whether they can run or not? In business, as in sport, you can't afford to put the wrong person in a key position or the results suffer. That is why a proper vetting process - one that selects the strongest candidate, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor outside of capability - is so important. But Obama would have it otherwise.

From Buchanan's article:

"On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."

The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation."

Obama favors affirmative action "when it is properly structured" but doesn't explain what that structure is. Does this mean he favors one race or group of races over others? Given the audience to which he was speaking, I think it's a fair bet he does.

McCain wants to outlaw any bias based on race, gender or national origin. In other words, the best man (or woman) wins. I can only hope - and pray - that the same holds true in November.